Wyoming Aggie said:

---

damiond said:

---

if a trisomy-9 baby was only suppose to live for four month and lived a beautiful life to the age of seventeen then just think of what god could do for all the other innocent babies the left wants to kill
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/11/03/san-antonio-teen-who-was-not-expected-to-live-past-four-months-old-celebrates-sweet-16-in-style/
https://www.hurleyfuneralhome.com/obituary/kylie-kurtz

---

People actually say **** like this when there are millions of babies across the world that don't even have clean water to drink.

---

Almost 100% of humans living up to this point never had clean water to drink. The left would argue that kids who will likely have to drink dirty water, or live in poverty, or face neglect, would all be better off dead/aborter. I bet the vast majority of those in such bad conditions, relative to ours, disagree strongly with the modern white liberal bozo who thinks they should be dead.

Liberals are sick. Especially the white ones.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

because Texas has crossed a line from conservative into something much more sinister. I'm not even sure what to call it now. Abbott's (and Patrick, and Paxton) way of governing is less about pursuing liberty and improving the lives of Texans and more about governing in a divisive, strict, and cruel manner.

I don't know what good they think they're doing by passing laws like this and harassing this poor woman who is already in an awful situation.

---

Luckily, killing children isn't in your definition of sinister.

---

forcing a suffering woman to continue suffering just so she can give birth to a baby that won't survive (or will already be dead) is pretty damn sinister if you ask me.

---

You and your leftist ilk always hang your hate on the super rare extreme cases. No matter what the issue is. This is usually indicative of a losing argument or desperation.

T-18 is the super rare extreme case you speak of. And no, I am not part of the left "ilk" you speak of. I'm part of the right wing that is in favor of letting the mother decide in this specific instance. The reason we're talking about super rare things is because that's what T-18 is.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

because Texas has crossed a line from conservative into something much more sinister. I'm not even sure what to call it now. Abbott's (and Patrick, and Paxton) way of governing is less about pursuing liberty and improving the lives of Texans and more about governing in a divisive, strict, and cruel manner.

I don't know what good they think they're doing by passing laws like this and harassing this poor woman who is already in an awful situation.

---

Luckily, killing children isn't in your definition of sinister.

---

forcing a suffering woman to continue suffering just so she can give birth to a baby that won't survive (or will already be dead) is pretty damn sinister if you ask me.

---

You and your leftist ilk always hang your hate on the super rare extreme cases. No matter what the issue is. This is usually indicative of a losing argument or desperation.

---

And the goofy right wingers cant look at a case like this and realize that they are wrong, no matter what the issue is.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

because Texas has crossed a line from conservative into something much more sinister. I'm not even sure what to call it now. Abbott's (and Patrick, and Paxton) way of governing is less about pursuing liberty and improving the lives of Texans and more about governing in a divisive, strict, and cruel manner.

I don't know what good they think they're doing by passing laws like this and harassing this poor woman who is already in an awful situation.

---

Luckily, killing children isn't in your definition of sinister.

---

forcing a suffering woman to continue suffering just so she can give birth to a baby that won't survive (or will already be dead) is pretty damn sinister if you ask me.

---

You and your leftist ilk always hang your hate on the super rare extreme cases. No matter what the issue is. This is usually indicative of a losing argument or desperation.

---

This is a super extreme rare case.

akm91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not. I'm trusting the doctors in this instance. I clearly don't know any better than them.

---

I guess you'd trust Dr. Gosnell's opinion right?

---

Who?

akm91 said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

---

No, it was "medically recommended" by one doctor and not "medically necessary".

---

Well, several doctors. But who is counting. You have an MD I am sure. You know he/they are wrong.

2040huck said:

---

akm91 said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

---

No, it was "medically recommended" by one doctor and not "medically necessary".

---

Well, several doctors. But who is counting. You have an MD I am sure. You know he/they are wrong.

---

Trust me, no one knows what's best for a pregnant woman carrying a nonviable pregnancy like a bunch men sitting at their desks..

2040huck said:

---

akm91 said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

---

No, it was "medically recommended" by one doctor and not "medically necessary".

---

Well, several doctors. But who is counting. You have an MD I am sure. You know he/they are wrong.

---

So why not just trust that doctor and be done with it. Or do you want more government over site?

because if the government disagrees with the doctor, then the doctor faces a felony conviction

barbacoa taco said:

---

because if the government disagrees with the doctor, then the doctor faces a felony conviction

---

A doctor advised their patient over their health, the patient makes a decision based upon that advise and now that doctor has to defend that decision in a murder trial.

So much for conservatives wanting to keep government out of a health care decision

Bubblez said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

because if the government disagrees with the doctor, then the doctor faces a felony conviction

---

A doctor advised their patient over their health, the patient makes a decision based upon that advise and now that doctor has to defend that decision in a murder trial.

So much for conservatives wanting to keep government out of a health care decision

---

Thanks to liberals that ship has sailed, so its game on.

We've seen it with both transgender stuff and COVID. You can find a doctor who will say anything you want, you just have to look hard enough.

According to TX Sup Court, the doctor did not even attest that a life threatening condition existed.

Good ruling by the Court. Others will have to (gasp) drive a few hours to end their pregnancies like this lady did.

Regardless of what a doctor has said, if you have this child and it miraculously lives to 1 year plus, you likely won't have another anyway. A child with T-18 will require your full undivided attention. You simply won't have enough bandwidth to care for a newborn and another kid with T-18.

"Texas Supreme Court rules against woman at center of abortion battle"

"In its seven-page ruling, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Cox's doctor, Damla Karsan, "asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox's condition poses the risks the exception requires." Texas' overlapping bans allow for abortions only when a pregnancy seriously threatens the health or life of the woman"



Crap doctor couldn't make the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/texas-abortion-kate-cox.html

Liberals tonight...

rak1693 said:

---

Regardless of what a doctor has said, if you have this child and it miraculously lives to 1 year plus, you likely won't have another anyway. A child with T-18 will require your full undivided attention. You simply won't have enough bandwidth to care for a newborn and another kid with T-18.

---

You're going beyond the scope here. This was about whether this pregnancy was a threat to the mother to satisfy the Texas law. Texas doesn't allow for wholesale killing of babies with defects. Many of us said several pages back that the abortion doctor (not even Cox's OB) did not say this was medically "necessary." That was the basis for this case.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not. I'm trusting the doctors in this instance. I clearly don't know any better than them.

---

I guess you'd trust Dr. Gosnell's opinion right?

---

Who?

---

Dr. Kermit Barron Gosnell. He operated an abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, until he went to prison for killing some born-alive infants. And numerous violations of the state's informed consent law. And breaking damn near every health code rule in the book, including failure to properly dispose of fetal remains, keeping many of them on display in jars.

As someone who has seen an D&E procedure up close and personal, handled and buried the remains myself, I just can't imagine walking into the doctors office and voluntarily doing it.

This is obviously a setup to try to establish enough of a loophole to squeeze all of the previously allowed abortions back in. Medical necessity fine. But this isn't setting up a fight for that.

I'm aware. I was just adding that little caveat. In terms of the case, I don't think it's medically necessary to have an abortion. I'm arguing for a choice of abortion on the grounds of what T-18 is. As I said, someone I'm very close with has it. It will quite literally make a grown man cry seeing how much the child suffers and how often he's in severe pain. I wish that on no one. And again, in almost all situations, I am against abortion. This is an extremely rare case.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

because Texas has crossed a line from conservative into something much more sinister. I'm not even sure what to call it now. Abbott's (and Patrick, and Paxton) way of governing is less about pursuing liberty and improving the lives of Texans and more about governing in a divisive, strict, and cruel manner.

I don't know what good they think they're doing by passing laws like this and harassing this poor woman who is already in an awful situation.

---

Luckily, killing children isn't in your definition of sinister.

---

forcing a suffering woman to continue suffering just so she can give birth to a baby that won't survive (or will already be dead) is pretty damn sinister if you ask me.

---

Killing children is pretty damn sinister if you ask me.

rak1693 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

rak1693 said:

---

No, that's not my job to decide. In the situation I'm familiar with, I'd like for it to be left up to the mother in the case of Trisomy 18. Any other birth defect is irrelevant at the moment. I'm only discussing Trisomy 18 because I think the court can make this a case by case basis and establish precedent from there. Trisomy-21 is a different issue as well. Extremely different life expectancies there. Again, we're talking about a life expectancy of a few days. Please let that sink it. You'd be very hard pressed to find anything shorter.

---

Well, what about kids with Down's...there's the high functioning ones and the low functioning ones - the latter can be a LOT of work to raise with numerous medical problems. Should those kids be aborted? Just in case?

---

I literally mentioned Down's Syndrome aka Trisomy-21. It is a lot of work but again, net nearly on the same level as T-18. Talking two entirely different genetic mutations.

---

Sorry...just saw the Trisomy part and missed the #.

But, why make the distinction? It's a genetic mutation. It causes parents lots of extra work. Where on that slope slope do we draw the line? Who gets to pick where the line is drawn? Why do THEY get to pick?

That's where to issue comes in - once you say it's ok to terminate due to a genetic mutation, the argument just moves to WHICH mutations are now allowed to be terminated...

I'm personally in favor of making the distinction because I'm personally against abortion in most scenarios. My personal opinions don't make the laws, but they should!

Kidding. I don't know what the answer is but I feel like you can establish some sort of life expectancy thing? That's up for interpretation but I'd lean on the medical community for that answer. T-18 has a life expectancy around 3 days, T-21 has an expectancy of quite a few decades, T-13 has an expectancy of 7-10 days. Again, there's a huge difference between T-18 and T-21. Can you draw the line between. Life expectancy of 6 months or a year? Just throwing darts at a wall

Bubblez said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

because if the government disagrees with the doctor, then the doctor faces a felony conviction

---

A doctor advised their patient over their health, the patient makes a decision based upon that advise and now that doctor has to defend that decision in a murder trial.

So much for conservatives wanting to keep government out of a health care decision

---

As pointed out above, the ONLY reason this is in court is because the Dr and mother filed suit. Not because the government filed suit.

If they'd had the abortion, nothing would have happened. Whether that abortion was in TX or in NM or any other state (there's a bunch between here an FL, right?)...

The mother could have the abortion in any of the 20+ states that allow it. The mother has been able to travel to FL while pregnant, so travel is not a reason to not do it.

Why will the mother not get the abortion right now that she wants so much? Seems odd if it's that important to her.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not. I'm trusting the doctors in this instance. I clearly don't know any better than them.

---

I guess you'd trust Dr. Gosnell's opinion right?

---

Who?

---

Dr. Kermit Barron Gosnell. He operated an abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, until he went to prison for killing some born-alive infants. And numerous violations of the state's informed consent law. And breaking damn near every health code rule in the book, including failure to properly dispose of fetal remains, keeping many of them on display in jars.

---

So arrest them when they break the law. Ask harder questions.

Logos Stick said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Of course you agree even though you haven't read the letter or the law.

Lefties want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. That much is clear.

---

And a very small group of conservatives get off on forcing women to have babies, even if it kills them. Thankfully that group gets smaller and smaller with each passing generation.

---

The odds of dying from childbirth in America today is like the odds of of winning the lottery 10 times in a row. It doesn't happen. Heck, we have C sections now so you don't even have to give vaginal birth anymore if it's even the slightest threat.

I don't know of any conservatives anywhere who believe what you stated.

---

I'm absolutely going to regret stepping into this thread but this just really bugs me...

The maternal mortality rate in the US in 2021 was 32.9 deaths per 100k births. Texas is on the higher end with a rate of 43.9/100k (and that's while abortions were more readily available in risky cases). The US as a whole is also well above most other developed nations which are often in the single digits per 100k. This is also just the rate for death and does not include any other major complications.

Winning the mega millions or powerball is roughly 1 in 300,000,000. There are about 260 million people over 18 in the US with 23 million of those living in Texas. If every one of them bought a powerball ticket twice a week it would take about 13 drawings or 6.5 weeks on average for a Texan to win the jackpot. Roughly 52 Texas women will die while giving child birth for every lottery winner.

Its even worse if you look at actual powerball wins. Texas has just 2 of the last 384 for a whopping 0.5% instead of the ~7.7% I used above. Maybe someone should send the government off to address that or maybe we need to start buying more tickets.

I'm not making any comments for or against abortion or even directly related to this particular case. I just want to highlight that the very act of giving birth comes with non insignificant risk to the woman.

Because it's their life and their decision to make, not yours. How would you feel if I told you what decisions you're allowed to make regarding your kids' education, healthcare, and upbringing?

And no, it's not "extra work." It's a fatal, devastating condition that has a near zero chance of survival. If the baby survives birth then it will likely suffer in pain for the few hours or day it lives. And you're arrogant enough to think ANOTHER family must live through this because YOU have views they think they should live by.

You and others really need to stop opining on topics you clearly don't know much about. It's frankly embarrassing how ridiculous some of these brazen statements are

Your second paragraph is nonsense. That includes postnatal death, which could be completely unrelated to giving birth.

They filed suit because the doctor ran the risk of prosecution and lawsuits if they went through with it. These hospitals have legal departments that advise them on this stuff and these decisions are not taken lightly. And SCOTX basically just confirmed that the "exception" is unattainable. The doctor can use his reasonable judgment, but of some blowhard DA disagrees with that then the doctor is screwed

And she did leave the state for an abortion. Not ideal, but she had to do what she had to do given the fact that it was an emergency at this point and SCOTX wasn't going to do the right thing.

She went to FL for an abortion?

rak1693 said:

---

I'm personally in favor of making the distinction because I'm personally against abortion in most scenarios. My personal opinions don't make the laws, but they should!

Kidding. I don't know what the answer is but I feel like you can establish some sort of life expectancy thing? That's up for interpretation but I'd lean on the medical community for that answer. T-18 has a life expectancy around 3 days, T-21 has an expectancy of quite a few decades, T-13 has an expectancy of 7-10 days. Again, there's a huge difference between T-18 and T-21. Can you draw the line between. Life expectancy of 6 months or a year? Just throwing darts at a wall

---

As I pointed out, the second you say that allowing termination for ONE genetic mutation, then the argument will just move to the next genetic mutation and there will be another lawsuit for that one. And then the next one and the next one.

Finally, well, since ALL genetic mutation terminations are legal, why stop there?

Logos Stick said:

---

Your second paragraph is nonsense. That includes postnatal death, which could be completely unrelated to giving birth.

---

Ok... so if we take the most limited view and just do day of delivery rates it would be 17% of the above numbers for ~7.5/100k. Still vastly more likely to die of child birth than to win the lottery 10 times in a row.