Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[biobook]

Ok. But desperately ill?

She got sick. Her abortion was approved before she got desperately ill if that's what you want to refer to her condition as. I envisioned like 106 fever with that description, but meanwhile it's clear in the article that as soon as she would of exhibited any fever they would of immediately approved her abortion.

Doctors generally try to treat conditions before they become severe, rather than allowing them to get progressively worse and life-threatening before beginning treatment.  She was sick, as you say.  But they forced her to develop a serious infection and only then, as a medical emergency, would they do the abortion. 

[imayid2]

Doctors generally try to treat conditions before they become severe, rather than allowing them to get progressively worse and life-threatening before beginning treatment.  She was sick, as you say.  But they forced her to develop a serious infection and only then, as a medical emergency, would they do the abortion. 

Why didn't she check herself into the hospital under expectant care management?

[imayid2]

Doctors generally try to treat conditions before they become severe, rather than allowing them to get progressively worse and life-threatening before beginning treatment.  She was sick, as you say.

That’s great for in general, not when you’re ending someone else’s life.

[imayid2]

That's torture to have to carry a pregnancy which has such a low chance of survival," says Dr. Peaceman. "Most women would find it extremely difficult and emotionally very challenging. And that's a big part of this problem, when we as physicians are trying to relieve patients' suffering. They're not allowed to do that in Texas."

Trivial or non trivial?

In the U.S., research has shown that women who are denied an abortion because of state gestational age restrictions experience significantly more life-threatening conditions in the short term than those who terminate their pregnancy as requested. These conditions include preeclampsia and other serious pregnancy-related complications. Women denied abortions are more likely to experience violence from the man involved in the pregnancy during the subsequent 2.5 years than are women who obtain abortions.

Trivial or non trivial?
Irrespective of their agenda, their proposed terminology is worthless.

[biobook]

Why didn't she check herself into the hospital under expectant care management?

Obviously I can't answer that, but it is common for many people to prefer being in their own home.  She mentions that she has a physical disability, so that may have played a role.  Perhaps expectant care in the hospital is more likely to be chosen by those who have reason to expect that they'll remain pregnant, while the description of "very little amniotic fluid left" suggests she may have been told that there was almost no chance of that.  "For a fetus at 18 weeks, the chance of survival in that state is almost nonexistent, according to Peaceman: "This is probably about as close to zero as you'll ever get in medicine.""

[biobook]

That’s great for in general, not when you’re ending someone else’s life.

You considered it acceptable for a ten year old girl to end the life of the fetus today, although it wouldn't cause her problems until 7-8 months in the future.
Why is it unacceptable to end the life of a fetus that could cause problems 7-8 days in the future?

[imayid2]

Obviously I can't answer that, but it is common for many people to prefer being in their own home.  She mentions that she has a physical disability, so that may have played a role.  Perhaps expectant care in the hospital is more likely to be chosen by those who have reason to expect that they'll remain pregnant, while the description of "very little amniotic fluid left" suggests she may have been told that there was almost no chance of that.  "For a fetus at 18 weeks, the chance of survival in that state is almost nonexistent, according to Peaceman: "This is probably about as close to zero as you'll ever get in medicine.""

The choice to stay home is hers, obviously, but that choice is what led her to be sick! Under expectant care management she would of been treated with antibiotics and the like to ward of infection.
Choosing to not do so, even if it's because there is little chance for the babies survival (which totally depends on the medical details which aren't given, THIS ARTICLE HAS AN AGENDA so excuse me for being suspicious), and especially the reason this woman gave about her baby facing difficulty if it survived, is NOT a good reason for abortion. Not according to Halacha, and not according to Texas.

[imayid2]

You considered it acceptable for a ten year old girl to end the life of the fetus today, although it wouldn't cause her problems until 7-8 months in the future.
Why is it unacceptable to end the life of a fetus that could cause problems 7-8 days in the future?

Because the threat to the woman's life under expectant care isn't the same as it is in the case of the 10 year old FWIU. Expectant care is standard practice for a woman who wants to save her baby in this situation. It isn't incurring an unreasonable amount of risk.

[biobook]

Trivial or non trivial?Trivial or non trivial?
Irrespective of their agenda, their proposed terminology is worthless.

The first is definitely non-trivial.  You've cited just the last part, mentioning the emotional difficulty, but the entire story is the same as the cases we've seen before - a partial miscarriage, where the woman's health is threatened by the presence of torn membranes. In this case, she's lost almost all the amniotic fluid, leaving the fetus somewhat like a fish out of water, with close to zero chance of survival, while her chance of developing a severe infection goes up quickly every day.

I don't think the second paragraph you cite is used as justification for abortion, so can't comment on that.

What do you think their agenda is?  I've known a lot of doctors, and if I were to describe their agenda it would be to improve patients' health.

[imayid2]

The first is definitely non-trivial.  You've cited just the last part, mentioning the emotional difficulty, but the entire story is the same as the cases we've seen before - a partial miscarriage, where the woman's health is threatened by the presence of torn membranes. In this case, she's lost almost all the amniotic fluid, leaving the fetus somewhat like a fish out of water, with close to zero chance of survival, while her chance of developing a severe infection goes up quickly every day.

The article sure sounded like it was a free standing reason, but I'll give Dr. Peaceman benefit of the doubt on that.
There is some risk required before you KILL A FETUS! She should have been in the hospital!

[biobook]

The choice to stay home is hers, obviously, but that choice is what led her to be sick! Under expectant care management she would of been treated with antibiotics and the like to ward of infection.
Choosing to not do so, even if it's because there is little chance for the babies survival (which totally depends on the medical details which aren't given, THIS ARTICLE HAS AN AGENDA so excuse me for being suspicious), and especially the reason this woman gave about her baby facing difficulty if it survived, is NOT a good reason for abortion. Not according to Halacha, and not according to Texas.

I don't think there's any reason to think she wouldn't have gotten the infection in the hospital.  The article is obviously not giving us her entire medical history, but in the other articles on this sort of situation the woman went home with antibiotics.  This was true of the woman in Ireland who took antibiotics, but developed sepsis and died.  There are benefits for some women to be in the hospital, especially if they have other medical issues, or if their home situation makes bedrest impossible, or if they live far from the hospital. 

[imayid2]

I don't think there's any reason to think she wouldn't have gotten the infection in the hospital.  The article is obviously not giving us her entire medical history, but in the other articles on this sort of situation the woman went home with antibiotics.  This was true of the woman in Ireland who took antibiotics, but developed sepsis and died. 

Hold on, are you saying that antibiotics don’t protect from infection? Did this woman receive antibiotics? No! There are other things doctors do to ward off infection under expectant care management as well FWIU. So how can you say “there is no reason to think she wouldn’t off gotten the infection in the hospital”?
In the case in Ireland the law necessitated a higher level of progression into the infection, no?

[imayid2]

This woman wanted to develop an infection so that she can abort and not have to deal with this situation.
I don’t want to minimize her trauma. It’s by all accounts a tragic and emotional situation. I’m ignoring it because it shouldn’t play a role in the decision to abort.
She admits she was “Pro choice” before this whole thing happened. Instead of politicizing this, she should find solace in the fact that her daughter died naturally and peacefully, without being brutally dismembered or some other horrible option.

[CountValentine]

This woman wanted to develop an infection so that she can abort and not have to deal with this situation.
I don’t want to minimize her trauma. It’s by all accounts a tragic and emotional situation. I’m ignoring it because it shouldn’t play a role in the decision to abort.
She admits she was “Pro choice” before this whole thing happened. Instead of politicizing this, she should find solace in the fact that her daughter died naturally and peacefully, without being brutally dismembered or some other horrible option.

Please read the article again. You twisted her position.

Elizabeth thought of abortion rights in broad terms: "I have said throughout my life I believe that women should have the access to the right to an abortion. I personally would never get one."

[imayid2]

Please read the article again. You twisted her position.

Elizabeth thought of abortion rights in broad terms: "I have said throughout my life I believe that women should have the access to the right to an abortion. I personally would never get one."

You don’t have to choose to get an abortion to be pro choice.

[biobook]

Hold on, are you saying that antibiotics don’t protect from infection?

I'm saying that antibiotics are not 100% protection, partly because there are several types of antibiotics, each working best on a particular microorganism, so it's possible that she becomes infected with a bacteria that is not affected by the particular antibiotic she's taking.  Also, it's possible that she is infected with such a large dose of bacteria that the antibiotics are not able to neutralize them all.  Also, due to overuse of antibiotics, some bacteria have become resistant to them.  The fact that she developed the specific infection she did is not evidence that she didn't take antibiotics.

Did this woman receive antibiotics? No!

We don't know that, since we don't have her entire medical history.

There are other things doctors do to ward off infection under expectant care management as well FWIU. So how can you say “there is no reason to think she wouldn’t off gotten the infection in the hospital”?

There are other things doctors can do in the hospital for certain women with difficult pregnancies, depending on the particularities of each case.

In the case in Ireland the law necessitated a higher level of progression into the infection, no?

Wikipedia, two different parts of the article:
Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.

The law in force at the time stated that the act of abortion, where there was no immediate physiological threat to the woman's life to continue the pregnancy, was a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment.

[CountValentine]

You don’t have to choose to get an abortion to be pro choice.

You claimed: This woman wanted to develop an infection so that she can abort and not have to deal with this situation.

That is a twist of her views and what happened.

[imayid2]

You claimed: This woman wanted to develop an infection so that she can abort and not have to deal with this situation.

That is a twist of her views and what happened.

She chose not to go under expectant care, and it’s clear in the article she was hoping to meet the threshold to abort. She didn’t want a child who would be suffering because she was born prematurely.

[imayid2]

The law in force at the time stated that the act of abortion, where there was no immediate physiological threat to the woman's life to continue the pregnancy, was a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment.

That’s a lot stricter than Texas.

[CountValentine]

She chose not to go under expectant care, and it’s clear in the article she was hoping to meet the threshold to abort. She didn’t want a child who would be suffering because she was born prematurely.

...but she was ok with a child with disabilities? You are not being levelheaded.