Manhattan said:
People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.
Eggs aren't turtles. But they have a greater right to exist than an unborn human baby.
Abortion Law Confusion Leads to Sepsis for Texas Woman[Staff Edit]
13,600 Views |
164 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Rockdoc
Eggs aren't turtles. But they have a greater right to exist than an unborn human baby.
Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Infection_Ag11 said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
Yeah I get that it's called a "high risk pregnancy" at 35 and beyond. What about 34? 33? Sorry, I just think it's silly to say 1 in 350 is "high risk" for Downs. That's 0.28%. I get that the medical community has its many quirks though. You're a die hard Fauci guy, for instance, along with almost all doctors. You probably think red meat, salt and butter are very bad like the vast majority of them. And that masks should be the new permanent protocol in every medical facility. It's what you've been taught. Doctors are by nature very good at memorizing, and obeying, without questioning.
Agnes Moffitt Rollin 60's - RIP Casper and Lil Ricky - FREE GOOFY AND LUCKY!
Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
Ummm at the age of 25 the risk of a woman having a child with downs is 1 in 2,500. At 40 it goes up to 1 in 100.
While a 1% chance is not huge there is a HUGE difference between a 1 in 2,500 chance and a 1 in 100 chance.
I would call that unacceptably high.
Additionally at 43 it jumps to 1 in 75 and at 45 it jumps to 1 in 17.
You can see how the risks of that increase exponentially after 35.
I am sorry this is an inconvenient fact for you.
Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Infection_Ag11 said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
Yeah I get that it's called a "high risk pregnancy" at 35 and beyond. What about 34? 33? Sorry, I just think it's silly to say 1 in 350 is "high risk" for Downs. That's 0.28%. I get that the medical community has its many quirks though. You're a die hard Fauci guy, for instance, along with almost all doctors. You probably think red meat, salt and butter are very bad like the vast majority of them. And that masks should be the new permanent protocol in every medical facility. It's what you've been taught. Doctors are by nature very good at memorizing, and obeying, without questioning.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The risks of ecclampsia, gestational diabetes, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy also skyrocket after 35.
Additionally the risks of heart defects in the baby, eso****eal malformations, skull malformations, and spontaneous abortions skyrocket as well.
Women over 40 have have a 33% chance of miscarriage. Miscarriages after 20 weeks are almost always caused by chromosomal abnormalities which are usually caused by older eggs.
There is also a marked increase in still births in women who conceive after 40 which is why most OBGYN's won't let the pregnancy go after their calculated term.
The risk of placenta previa which is 1 in 200 in most other women increases to 1 in 50 in women over 40.
Counting all the abnormalities, genetic conditions, etc.
A woman over 40 has about a 50% chance of either having a baby with a real birth defect, a miscarriage, or another condition like eclampsia or gestational diabetes that will negatively affect the baby, the pregnancy or put both at risk for death, or severe life altering conditions after the pregnancy.
Which is what makes pregnancy over 40 high risk.
That is the reality of the situation.
The label of geriatric pregnancies being called high risk has absolutely nothing to do with doctors being mindless drones and everything to do with the realities of pregnancy in older women.
50% of those pregnancies will have complications.
That's a coin toss.
Additionally the risks of heart defects in the baby, eso****eal malformations, skull malformations, and spontaneous abortions skyrocket as well.
Women over 40 have have a 33% chance of miscarriage. Miscarriages after 20 weeks are almost always caused by chromosomal abnormalities which are usually caused by older eggs.
There is also a marked increase in still births in women who conceive after 40 which is why most OBGYN's won't let the pregnancy go after their calculated term.
The risk of placenta previa which is 1 in 200 in most other women increases to 1 in 50 in women over 40.
Counting all the abnormalities, genetic conditions, etc.
A woman over 40 has about a 50% chance of either having a baby with a real birth defect, a miscarriage, or another condition like eclampsia or gestational diabetes that will negatively affect the baby, the pregnancy or put both at risk for death, or severe life altering conditions after the pregnancy.
Which is what makes pregnancy over 40 high risk.
That is the reality of the situation.
The label of geriatric pregnancies being called high risk has absolutely nothing to do with doctors being mindless drones and everything to do with the realities of pregnancy in older women.
50% of those pregnancies will have complications.
That's a coin toss.
God hates hands that shed innocent blood. That's a pretty good argument!Manhattan said:
The only argument against abortion is emotional.
It would seem that anyone who could afford such treatments could afford a short trip to another state for the killing procedure.DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
OP got aborted on this thread once again.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be individual cases that will make ANY law inadequate. This is unavoidable.Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
My pro-choice wife works in a Massachusetts hospital and she brings home all sorts of horror stories about abortion gone wild - and her colleagues from Washington D.C. tell stories about women (without life threatening health risk or drug addiction) having abortions at 7 months. These are other examples of individual cases that make their laws inadequate.
My point is, we now live in a country bereft of compromise. There are only extreme positions now, and as the old saying goes: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
It took three days at home until I became sick 'enough' that the ethics board at our hospital agreed we could begin medical treatment; three days until my life was considered at risk 'enough' for the inevitable premature delivery of my daughter to be performed; three days until the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals were allowed to do their jobs," she writes in a first-person essay for The Meteor, a media company committed to storytelling around issues of gender equity.
And we all know the American left would never lie about such matters.
Nor would they cover up matters related to the on-demand Abortion culture killing women...
My wife was past 35 when we had most of our kids, so I'm very familiar with the statistics that many laid out above.Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.DallasAg 94 said:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
It is only NOT high risk if you are one of the ones that don't have a Down's baby. Sticking with that, we optioned to NOT have an Amnio as we would NOT have aborted if our baby had indicators.
When the Amnio is done, IIRC, it is used to determine the sex of the baby.
Both of those are reasons people over 35 have abortions. My question for bringing it up is... If Abortion is not an option, the risk of miscarriage from having an Amnio, IMO was more than the benefit of "just knowing early" if the baby was Downs.
If she was Pro-Abortion and she had an Amnio... I'd be interested to know if it caused an issue with this pregnancy. I'm also curious if the Baby had indicators of Downs and/or if they found out the sex of the baby.
Not a judgment on her in any way, just a curiosity on my part.
I'm curious if any of your friends over 35 had an Amnio if you don't think it is High Risk.
What is asinine is that if astronauts found a "collection of cells" or "technically not a human before xx weeks" on another planet. It would be the greatest finding and would be celebrated as finding life.
Oh, we're talking about 40 now lol. And 43.Ags4DaWin said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
Ummm at the age of 25 the risk of a woman having a child with downs is 1 in 2,500. At 40 it goes up to 1 in 100.
While a 1% chance is not huge there is a HUGE difference between a 1 in 2,500 chance and a 1 in 100 chance.
I would call that unacceptably high.
Additionally at 43 it jumps to 1 in 75 and at 45 it jumps to 1 in 17.
You can see how the risks of that increase exponentially after 35.
I am sorry this is an inconvenient fact for you.
I was simply responding to this...
Quote:
At 35, she is a high risk for Downs.
No she is not. Period.
Agnes Moffitt Rollin 60's - RIP Casper and Lil Ricky - FREE GOOFY AND LUCKY!
Agreed...and THAT is why anything 35+ is called a "high risk" pregnancy. Not because there is a "high" (1 in 350) chance of having a kid with Downs.Ags4DaWin said:
The risks of ecclampsia, gestational diabetes, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy also skyrocket after 35.
Additionally the risks of heart defects in the baby, eso****eal malformations, skull malformations, and spontaneous abortions skyrocket as well.
Women over 40 have have a 33% chance of miscarriage. Miscarriages after 20 weeks are almost always caused by chromosomal abnormalities which are usually caused by older eggs.
Agnes Moffitt Rollin 60's - RIP Casper and Lil Ricky - FREE GOOFY AND LUCKY!
My argument is that science cannot tell us when life begins (after conception), therefore I will not risk ending an innocent human life. That is very logical, has nothing to do with emotion.Manhattan said:
The only argument against abortion is emotional.
I can't speak for anyone else, as I do not know, I just know that we had them run the tests they recommended and we were going to keep and love the baby no matter what. I don't really have a problem with the term "high risk" for pregnancy at or after 35...although I think "moderate risk" would be a more accurate and less alarming term...I just don't think the risk of Downs at 35 is "high risk" (1 in 350). Maybe my brain isn't working properly, but that just doesn't compute for me.DallasAg 94 said:My wife was past 35 when we had most of our kids, so I'm very familiar with the statistics that many laid out above.Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.DallasAg 94 said:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
It is only NOT high risk if you are one of the ones that don't have a Down's baby. Sticking with that, we optioned to NOT have an Amnio as we would NOT have aborted if our baby had indicators.
When the Amnio is done, IIRC, it is used to determine the sex of the baby.
Both of those are reasons people over 35 have abortions. My question for bringing it up is... If Abortion is not an option, the risk of miscarriage from having an Amnio, IMO was more than the benefit of "just knowing early" if the baby was Downs.
If she was Pro-Abortion and she had an Amnio... I'd be interested to know if it caused an issue with this pregnancy. I'm also curious if the Baby had indicators of Downs and/or if they found out the sex of the baby.
Not a judgment on her in any way, just a curiosity on my part.
I'm curious if any of your friends over 35 had an Amnio if you don't think it is High Risk.
To be fair, I have become heavily jaded against doctors and the medical community in general over the past few years. There are a few good apples though. Maybe that is clouding my judgment.
Agnes Moffitt Rollin 60's - RIP Casper and Lil Ricky - FREE GOOFY AND LUCKY!
If he says this about little ones, imagine how he views those who are passionate about their wholesale slaughter...andy griffith said:God hates hands that shed innocent blood. That's a pretty good argument!Manhattan said:
The only argument against abortion is emotional.
Quote:
Mark 9:42
42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
Agnes Moffitt Rollin 60's - RIP Casper and Lil Ricky - FREE GOOFY AND LUCKY!
Manhattan argument crashes and burns.
I'm shocked….
I'm shocked….
Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
Perhaps someday Manhattan you may get the facts straight and abandon your pathetic and inaccurate liberal views. It's truly amazing how an educated person can hold or adopt your distorted views.
Actually the fringe cases are rape and incest used by the left. Babies are being murdered for those 1% of abortionsManhattan said:
The only fringe cases are abortions after viability, which was <1% of abortions.
Women are being punished for 1% of abortions that were already illegal.
Manhattan said:
People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.
What makes a person a person?
edit i found your response: Three inches and biological development that is impossible without the mother.
Edit just not worth it.
I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for our medical community based on the past couple years. I'm hoping it was Politicians usurping their titles and demanding "The Science is Settled" and "Trust the Science."Hammerly High Dive Crips said:
I can't speak for anyone else, as I do not know, I just know that we had them run the tests they recommended and we were going to keep and love the baby no matter what. I don't really have a problem with the term "high risk" for pregnancy at or after 35...although I think "moderate risk" would be a more accurate and less alarming term...I just don't think the risk of Downs at 35 is "high risk" (1 in 350). Maybe my brain isn't working properly, but that just doesn't compute for me.
To be fair, I have become heavily jaded against doctors and the medical community in general over the past few years. There are a few good apples though. Maybe that is clouding my judgment.
Anyone who says either of those... probably didn't have much science. NEVER lose your objectivity and skepticism of Science. It is the point of Science to investigate and scrutinize.
We will ALL be judged accordingly .ChemEAg08 said:Manhattan said:
People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.
You will be judged harshly on judgement day for opting to feed children to moloch.
The "medical emergency" exemption needs to be improved.
"It took three days at home until I became sick 'enough' that the ethics board at our hospital agreed we could begin medical treatment; three days until my life was considered at risk 'enough' for the inevitable premature delivery of my daughter to be performed; three days until the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals were allowed to do their jobs,"
Republicans ignore this problem at their own peril.
"It took three days at home until I became sick 'enough' that the ethics board at our hospital agreed we could begin medical treatment; three days until my life was considered at risk 'enough' for the inevitable premature delivery of my daughter to be performed; three days until the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals were allowed to do their jobs,"
Republicans ignore this problem at their own peril.
Manhattan said:
People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.
That isn't a republican problem, that is an ethics board at that hospital problem. And probably a lawyer problem as well as they are all so risk adverse that they hamstring themselves and those around them.rgvag11 said:
The "medical emergency" exemption needs to be improved.
"It took three days at home until I became sick 'enough' that the ethics board at our hospital agreed we could begin medical treatment; three days until my life was considered at risk 'enough' for the inevitable premature delivery of my daughter to be performed; three days until the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals were allowed to do their jobs,"
Republicans ignore this problem at their own peril.
I'd also bet that insurance played a role in all of this as well, lest we forget who actually runs the medical industry.
But let's blame Republicans, it's much easier than facing the actual facts.
Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Infection_Ag11 said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
Yeah I get that it's called a "high risk pregnancy" at 35 and beyond. What about 34? 33? Sorry, I just think it's silly to say 1 in 350 is "high risk" for Downs. That's 0.28%. I get that the medical community has its many quirks though. You're a die hard Fauci guy, for instance, along with almost all doctors. You probably think red meat, salt and butter are very bad like the vast majority of them. And that masks should be the new permanent protocol in every medical facility. It's what you've been taught. Doctors are by nature very good at memorizing, and obeying, without questioning.
I bet if the odds were 1:350, you'd think long and hard about jumping on an airplane to go on vacation.
Odds at 1:2500 or 1:1500 though....probably won't give it much thought.
Science tells us when life begins in every other aspect except with people, because people are stupid and you have commies like Manhattan that think it's perfectly OK to kill a baby right up to the point it is about to be born.doubledog said:My argument is that science cannot tell us when life begins (after conception), therefore I will not risk ending an innocent human life. That is very logical, has nothing to do with emotion.Manhattan said:
The only argument against abortion is emotional.
In the agricultural world, life begins at conception and is legally defined that way. Has been for years, and there is absolutely zero issue with it, it is well established by statute and easily understood.
But with people, we have mixed definitions depending on the situation. And it's stupid. There are legal statues on the books that define unborn children as humans in some areas, but not in others. Example - a criminal murders a pregnant woman, they can be charged for double homicide. A criminal shoots or stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the baby but the mother lives, that criminal can be charged with homicide.
But then we have arguments over whether it is OK to kill that same baby right up to the point it exits the birth canal, and some folks actually think that is acceptable and even worse lobby for it.
Amazing, sad and maddening all at the same time.
"Just a collection of cells"Manhattan said:
People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.
- Manhattan
18 weeks:
Pretty simple - she's in enough danger when her doctor considers her to be.Tanya 93 said:DevilD77 said:
The Texas law allows for abortion if the hwalth of the mother is threatened so I call BS.
I think much of the argument is about when is she considered in enough danger to allow it.
If odds of dying in a plane crash were even 1 in 5,000, we'd be losing planes all the time and people would be terrified to fly. Apples to oranges imo.schmellba99 said:Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Infection_Ag11 said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
Yeah I get that it's called a "high risk pregnancy" at 35 and beyond. What about 34? 33? Sorry, I just think it's silly to say 1 in 350 is "high risk" for Downs. That's 0.28%. I get that the medical community has its many quirks though. You're a die hard Fauci guy, for instance, along with almost all doctors. You probably think red meat, salt and butter are very bad like the vast majority of them. And that masks should be the new permanent protocol in every medical facility. It's what you've been taught. Doctors are by nature very good at memorizing, and obeying, without questioning.
I bet if the odds were 1:350, you'd think long and hard about jumping on an airplane to go on vacation.
Odds at 1:2500 or 1:1500 though....probably won't give it much thought.
Agnes Moffitt Rollin 60's - RIP Casper and Lil Ricky - FREE GOOFY AND LUCKY!
The pointHammerly High Dive Crips said:If odds of dying in a plane crash were even 1 in 5,000, we'd be losing planes all the time and people would be terrified to fly. Apples to oranges imo.schmellba99 said:Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Infection_Ag11 said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
Yeah I get that it's called a "high risk pregnancy" at 35 and beyond. What about 34? 33? Sorry, I just think it's silly to say 1 in 350 is "high risk" for Downs. That's 0.28%. I get that the medical community has its many quirks though. You're a die hard Fauci guy, for instance, along with almost all doctors. You probably think red meat, salt and butter are very bad like the vast majority of them. And that masks should be the new permanent protocol in every medical facility. It's what you've been taught. Doctors are by nature very good at memorizing, and obeying, without questioning.
I bet if the odds were 1:350, you'd think long and hard about jumping on an airplane to go on vacation.
Odds at 1:2500 or 1:1500 though....probably won't give it much thought.
Your head
Quintessential End of Thread post.Sarge 91 said:
That is a flat out lie.The law has a medical emergency exception.Quote:
Sec.A171.205.AAEXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter
I'm not reading the additional 5 pages because this is the end-all, be-all. Did OP every acknowledge this?
Yet if some piece of **** shoots the mom in the stomach and the BABY dies, they are charged with murder. Weird.Manhattan said:
People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.
schmellba99 said:The pointHammerly High Dive Crips said:If odds of dying in a plane crash were even 1 in 5,000, we'd be losing planes all the time and people would be terrified to fly. Apples to oranges imo.schmellba99 said:Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.Hammerly High Dive Crips said:Infection_Ag11 said:Hammerly High Dive Crips said:DallasAg 94 said:You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...Manhattan said:
https://people.com/health/texas-woman-nearly-loses-her-life-after-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/
This is why you don't put an arbitrary date on abortion like 0 or 15 weeks. This lady was 18 weeks pregnant and could not get an abortion even though she was not going to have a living baby.
Now she may not be able to have kids, because Republicans and probably hospital lawyers dictated that she could not get her the treatment she needed.
From the article:Whether the Abortion Law was changed or not... it'd have had nothing to do with her ability to have children. At 35, she is a high risk for Downs. If it took her 18 months of fertility... it could very well take 12 months for her body to recover... and another 18 months of fertility to conceive. She'd be VERY high risk.Quote:
It was devastating for Amanda, 35, and her husband Josh, 35, who had been through 18 months of fertility treatments before they were able to conceive their baby girl.
The Law change and her medical situation likely has no bearing on her ability to have children. Certainly not more than her age.
Sorry but 35 is not "high risk" for downs. I agree with your point though.
As a 41 year old, the vast majority of my peers were still having children at or after 35. But per the stats, 40 is not even close to "high risk". "Slightly higher than extremely extremely low" yes.
The risk of Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350. That's pretty high as far as fetal anomalies go. It's about 1 in 100 at age 40. And 35 is by definition a high risk pregnancy.
For reference, it's about 1 in 1500 before age 30.
Yeah I get that it's called a "high risk pregnancy" at 35 and beyond. What about 34? 33? Sorry, I just think it's silly to say 1 in 350 is "high risk" for Downs. That's 0.28%. I get that the medical community has its many quirks though. You're a die hard Fauci guy, for instance, along with almost all doctors. You probably think red meat, salt and butter are very bad like the vast majority of them. And that masks should be the new permanent protocol in every medical facility. It's what you've been taught. Doctors are by nature very good at memorizing, and obeying, without questioning.
I bet if the odds were 1:350, you'd think long and hard about jumping on an airplane to go on vacation.
Odds at 1:2500 or 1:1500 though....probably won't give it much thought.
Your head
While I appreciate the analogy, it doesn't fit. A plane full of hundreds of people going down vs the chances of a singular woman having a Downs baby. One of these wide sweeping sorrow and 100s of families impacted. The other leaves a singular family with possibly the most loving child of all time (albeit one that requires extra care and attention)
Featured Stories
See All
27:14
7h ago
8.2k
19:59
10h ago
9.5k
TexAgs Post Game Wrap: No. 24 Texas A&M 21, Arkansas 17
by David Nuño
Post Game Review: No. 24 Texas A&M 21, Arkansas 17
by Kay Naegeli
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Still Irritated Over The "Uncatchable" Non PI Call
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37
Broseph
The thing you can say about Reed that you cant about any of our QBs
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21