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.

---

You and the 21 people who blue starred this so far - shame on all of you. You will give an accounting to God for your support of infanticide.

I must say, the amount of women I put into sepsis today really has brought a spring to my step.

It must be like that orgasmic feeling abortionists get every time a child is murdered.

C@LAg said:

---

I must say, the amount of women I put into sepsis today really has brought a spring to my step.

It must be like that orgasmic feeling abortionists get every time a child is murdered.

---

Brilliant.

schmellba99 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

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.

---

You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...

From the article:

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.

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.

---

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.

---

The point






Your head

---

I think my point may have been too nuanced for you...jk.

One component of factoring "risk" to me is what is at stake. In one instance, you are talking about a horrifying and fiery/painful death. Just a few cases per year would cripple the airline industry and commerce and terrify Americans. In the other case, you have a beautiful child who has Downs but is happy and brightens up everyone's day who they come into contact with. I'll take 1/350 odds at the latter in a heartbeat (we're trying for our second right now and my wife is 39). But I don't think I would take 1/1,000 odds with the former. Hope that makes sense.

If you tell someone they have a 1/350 chance of catching a head cold if they do xxx, I wouldn't categorize that as "high risk". If you said they have a 1/350 chance of catching a disease with 100% kill rate, I'd probably say that is "high risk".

Enough derailing by myself, we can just agree to disagree.

Touchless said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

People have a right to life, 18 week fetuses aren't people.

---

Yet if some piece of **** shoots the mom in the stomach and the BABY dies, they are charged with murder. Weird.

---

Reminder you cannot use logic and other cognitive abilities with people committed to voting for the Betos and Bidens of the world. The OP was just a distributed talking point sent to the OP to post here and drive views, comments etc aka traffic.

We linked story is literally a "dear diary" piece with no facts, citations, references or anything that points to this actually happening.

Baby murderers are disgusting and abhorrent to society, no matter whether they do it with a gun or scalpel.

I will caveat that I support exceptions to any abortion laws. There are just too many circumstances to not have exceptions that are more broad than what most would prefer.

1 in a 100 versus 1 in 2,500

There is a big difference in risk between those two odds.

Why take that risk if you can avoid it by getting ur **** together and making some sacrifices before 35?

And medically, high risk refers to the risk of people who engage in certain behaviors versus the risk of people who don't.

People at 35 have a high risk of complications versus those below 35.

Lots of people are raped and these are not reported.

Lots of medical conditions may require an abortion that don't fit a state determined definition.

I don't agree that the state should sticking there nose in here. If lowering abortion rates are the goals, then several other actions can happen to make that happen. We will never get to zero abortions in this country.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

1 in a 100 versus 1 in 2,500

There is a big difference in risk between those two odds.

Why take that risk if you can avoid it by getting ur **** together and making some sacrifices before 35?

And medically, high risk refers to the risk of people who engage in certain behaviors versus the risk of people who don't.

People at 35 have a high risk of complications versus those below 35.

---

I'm with you, we tried for years (not 1, not 2, more like 5) and were convinced we could not have children and pretty much gave up on it (even after several rounds of IUI)...then the unthinkable happened and my wife conceived at 37. I think she had some type of issue with her fallopian tube(s), Yeah, in some ways it would be great to have started much earlier (like we intended)...but then again, we wouldn't have this exact daughter and I wouldn't change it for the world. Best "accident" ever.

To your point though, I would strongly encourage people to have children in their 20's or early 30's if at all possible...for many reasons, but one of the least of which being that the chance of a baby with Downs goes to a "high" (1/350) risk at 35.

Something like 70% of the US wants a compromise on abortion. Some limitations, some exceptions, should not be first form of birth control, etc.

Its the 30% at the ends that drive all the talk and controversy. And it drives the campaign dollars. People contribute on the extremes posed by each side, donating against no restrictions or to stop all abortions.

he politicos are scared to death the 70% get together, put a proposition on the ballots subject to a broad election. But we are getting close to that in several states.

it's almost like there should be reasonable middle ground and multiple political parties to force the exiting parties to not promote such extreme policies.

5 pages, on an OP topic that's an absolute bull**** lie?

I guess it "started a conversation"

In similar news, 40 million babies have been murdered.

larry culpepper said:

---

it's almost like there should be reasonable middle ground and multiple political parties to force the exiting parties to not promote such extreme policies.

---

There isn't an extreme policy. HTMFH.

The Banned said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

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.

---

You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...

From the article:

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.

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.

---

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.

---

The point













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)

---

Again.....

The point








Your head

But I digress, people cannot seem to focus on the right thing because it doesn't mold to the point they want ot make, or they just want to find something to "gotcha!" the other person with so they can feel all good and stuff.

Doctors covering their butts because of bad law. They should not have to wait for a medical emergency if they think the best course of action is to abort the fetus.

etxag02 said:

---

Doctors covering their butts because of bad law. They should not have to wait for a medical emergency if they think the best course of action is to abort the fetus.

---

It seems to be the consensus that it is okay to punish women because law makers are too lazy to write better laws making sure women don't go into sepsis or 10 year old rape victims don't have to give birth.

schmellba99 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Hammerly High Dive Crips said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

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.

---

You and the story is very disingenuous... SURPRISE...

From the article:

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Change the subject from downs to something else....say dying in a plane crash.

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.

---

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.

---

The point













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)

---

Again.....

The point








Your head

But I digress, people cannot seem to focus on the right thing because it doesn't mold to the point they want ot make, or they just want to find something to "gotcha!" the other person with so they can feel all good and stuff.

---

I firmly believe the point did not go over my head. I appreciate that you are trying to point out how drastic a difference between 1:1500 and 1:350 actually is. Problem is the plane crash is death of 100s vs the birth of a new human that has downs. I'll take my 1:350 chance of a Down's syndrome child. Why not? It won't kill me and there is a new human. A fiery plane crash will kill me and hundreds of others. The ends make it an analogy that is lacking.

deddog said:

---

5 pages, on an OP topic that's an absolute bull**** lie?

I guess it "started a conversation"

---

You should be used to his lies by now. Lies are their tactics.

Manhattan said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

Doctors covering their butts because of bad law. They should not have to wait for a medical emergency if they think the best course of action is to abort the fetus.

---

It seems to be the consensus that it is okay to punish women because law makers are too lazy to write better laws making sure women don't go into sepsis or 10 year old rape victims don't have to give birth.

---

Your trolling has gotten really lazy. It's like you aren't even trying anymore.

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.

---

Evaluate the source - a leftist wannabe media hack.

Evaluate the facts - in Texas you can still absolutely intervene in the extremely rare case where a woman's life is at high risk.

She ultimately just making a case that the hospital put her at risk due to acting too slow (72 hours). That may be true or it may not be, but either way it has nothing to do with the law or the reasoning behind the law.



So once again we have a leftist misrepresenting facts as support for their predetermined agenda (the author of the article). And once again we also have a leftist with an agenda doing their best through social media to amplify these misrepresentations.

Pokers got it right. Yawn.

Why did the hospital act slow?

I doubt they did. Odds are this lady is severely misrepresenting her medical facts becuase she cannot be corrected thanks to HIPPA. Happens every day.

If OP doesn't like the way Texas does things, he needs to keep his nose in his state. Tired of the lies and misinformation of the left.

As a Texas taxpayer I am going to keep it my business, thanks.

Do you vote here?