A cancer diagnosis may, or may not, constitute a medical emergency. They may be told to heal her with thoughts and prayers!
Stats for “The Debate”
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
Fun fact: All embryos biologically begin as female. It isn't until around 8 weeks gestation that the fetus has enough androgens to differentiate from the maternal estrogens to allow maleness to develop.
So, if life begins at conception, that mean all men are trans men.
So, if life begins at conception, that mean all men are trans men.
It’s our resident “scientist” and “former Republican” outside pooper.
What is the diagnosis?
What are the possible treatments?
What does the patient want to do with regards to treatment?
These are the same questions that would be asked before the SC ruling.
You are looking for a needle in a haystack.
"There will be overreach", you mean of the kind that occurred with Roe and Casey? You realize that all the complaining you are doing right now about a court decision is the mirror image of the pro-life/anti-abortion's issue with the Supreme Court deciding Roe as well right?
Opinion in the country is supposedly heavily in support of abortion in the first trimester. You all should have no fear of getting something like that through everywhere unless....unless that support figure is as soft as I think it is.
As to costs rising, illegal immigration has a cost too. Costs can be offset or traded.
No, it's a common occurance in every cancer center, in every city, in every state.
And every state that carves out for med emergencies will have countless docs ready to opine same in a letter and no prosecutor anywhere will take issue with it
No, that pregnant women are found to have cancer and are advised to terminate the pregnancy, since virtually all chemotherapeutics (even so-called "smart drugs") cross the placenta and negatively affect fetal development.
Now, if one of those pregnant women are in a state where termination of the pregnancy requires showing that her life is in immediate danger, she will receive alternate, substandard care until the fetus is viable and can be delivered. By that point her odds of survival will have dropped.
Don't be obtuse. This isn't that hard to understand.
Has that law been tested and approved yet? No. Will it pass Constitutional muster? In my opinion, No.Arkansas may be the first to test it
The law also known as The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act bans all abortions except so save a mother's life in an emergency medical situation, it does not include exceptions for rape or incest victims. It also bans over the counter medications such as Plan B, the morning-after pill.
Even Alito hints (dicta, not ruling) that while abortion is not a right deeply rooted enough in US history to be fundamental to liberty under the 14th Amendment, sex, marriage and contraception are “different” and have been protected.
All you guys projecting and predicting the extreme horribles need to either read some “substantive due process” history or hold back.
No. That's only one prong in red MO. The other is substantial irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. Death isn't the sole standard, nor is immediacy.
Is this theory? Or do we have a bunch of actual patients experiencing this issue?
Any oncologist can inform you on this issue. I have two in my extended family (a sister-in-law and a first cousin).
They are practicing in states that have not banned abortions (Oregon, Virginia), but are willing to inform people who will listen about some of the reasons for abortion that are not the common rape & incest reason. They are aware that physicians is other states will be pressured to alter care. They have personal experience in being forced to alter care options for other reasons (such as poor health insurance). Again, this is not hard to understand, unless you are trying hard to confuse people.
Last edited:
It sounds like a theoretical issue at this point.
Who will be pressuring the physicians to alter care?
Gee, it's been one business day since the decision came down. Do you expect a body count already? When people say that "women will die because of this decision" they are indeed looking into future consequences, often with a highly-informed point of view. As to your last question, it's pretty silly. If I threaten you with jail time for an action, you will be inclined to avoid that action. If you are not so inclined, your boss will be inclined to make you avoid that work-related action.
Your prediction is specious.
Who thinks untreated cancer is not a threat to the life of a woman? And why would that position prevail at law? Show me one case.
I don’t see it. Looks like MTIOTF has asked the question I was going to ask next.
...doctors told ABC News the language of these laws is vague and makes it unclear what qualifies as a mother's life being in danger, what the risk of death is, and how imminent death must be before a provider can act...
"I do not -- nor do my patients want me to -- stop what I'm doing and think about what the judge would do: 'Will the judge sentence me to jail if I were to perform an abortion?"
"When I see patients, for instance, who have a major cardiac problem, a lot of the time they have a risk of a major cardiac event of up to 15% to 25%, even up to 50%," she told ABC News. "At the moment they're fine. But as they get further into pregnancy, that's going to put their life more and more at risk."
She continued, "So do I have to wait until they're on death's doorstep, or can I intervene at that point to prevent more harm and more damage to them?"
abcnews.go.com
"I do not -- nor do my patients want me to -- stop what I'm doing and think about what the judge would do: 'Will the judge sentence me to jail if I were to perform an abortion?"
"When I see patients, for instance, who have a major cardiac problem, a lot of the time they have a risk of a major cardiac event of up to 15% to 25%, even up to 50%," she told ABC News. "At the moment they're fine. But as they get further into pregnancy, that's going to put their life more and more at risk."
She continued, "So do I have to wait until they're on death's doorstep, or can I intervene at that point to prevent more harm and more damage to them?"
Why doctors say the 'save the mother's life' exception of abortion bans is medically risky
Doctors say abortion ban exceptions to save the mother's life make it unclear how imminent death must be before a provider can act.
You realize he is basically trolling right? Arguing all these doomsday what-ifs is just wasting time. The Christian Taliban is in charge now. Reeeeeee
These are not doomsday "what-ifs" and that's exactly the point. These are everyday occurences for every oncologist. Much more common than, for example, the incest exclusion.
If you are diagnosed with leukemia and your 3-year survival prognosis is estimated to be 50% if you begin treatment right now, but only 20% if you commence treatment after 6 months of waiting, then is that sufficient justification for an abortion to be approved to facilitate higher odds for maternal survival, if both the doctor and mother favor that option?
It is not a settled question. On the contrary, it is very much an unknown. It might be answered differently in different states.
If you are diagnosed with leukemia and your 3-year survival prognosis is estimated to be 50% if you begin treatment right now, but only 20% if you commence treatment after 6 months of waiting, then is that sufficient justification for an abortion to be approved to facilitate higher odds for maternal survival, if both the doctor and mother favor that option?
It is not a settled question. On the contrary, it is very much an unknown. It might be answered differently in different states.
The intentionally ill-informed collaborating with the stupid propagandist to confuse them both for political purposes.
I know I'm the one that brought his name into this thread, but it didn't even occur to me until just now that there's some irony in Stevie being brought into a thread that includes conversations about rape.
Socks - shorts - 1,2,3 - swish
Alford was accused of rape? Scary. Hard to believe anyone with their hair parted down the middle could get sex any other way to be honest
I mean...Shirley no state like Wyoming or South Dakota or (gasp) Missouri would ever overreach.
The fact is, we're in a new reality. Who knows what will come of this decision? They've left it to the states to decide. In some sense I can live with that. But if you don't think some backwater won't do some stupid shit, well, we'll discuss who's not living in reality when we get there.
And, conversely, CA, NY or Hawaii might set up abortion on demand, at any time, for any/no reason.
Exactly. We've dismantled the framework nationally. And no, I don't have faith in Congress or the electorate to create one.
John Roberts might be the smartest man in America. He knew what would happen.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Another statistic for this debate: women and men differ on abortion support by only 5%. Women support it at a 63% clip while men do at a 58% rate.
I think that comparison illuminating and makes it doubtful that the main motivation behind the pro-life movement is animus towards women, men wanting to make women subservient or second class citizens, or a Handmaid's Tale type scenario.
www.pewresearch.org
Given that women vote at a slightly higher rate than men and that they make up a slightly higher percentage of the population, it seems that pro choice supporters would do well to focus on pro-life women. I might be wrong, but I think the best way to persuade them is to (1) admit they exist, (2) don't berate them, and (3) address their concern.
But maybe I'm too naive. Maybe it's easier and more effective to advocate a false narrative that the pro-life movement is really about enslaving women to stir up other grievances within that population and turn them to the pro choice movement.
I think that comparison illuminating and makes it doubtful that the main motivation behind the pro-life movement is animus towards women, men wanting to make women subservient or second class citizens, or a Handmaid's Tale type scenario.
Public Opinion on Abortion
While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.
www.pewresearch.org
Given that women vote at a slightly higher rate than men and that they make up a slightly higher percentage of the population, it seems that pro choice supporters would do well to focus on pro-life women. I might be wrong, but I think the best way to persuade them is to (1) admit they exist, (2) don't berate them, and (3) address their concern.
But maybe I'm too naive. Maybe it's easier and more effective to advocate a false narrative that the pro-life movement is really about enslaving women to stir up other grievances within that population and turn them to the pro choice movement.
If those numbers are accurate, then the right to abortion at a state level will be pretty quick and pretty strong.Another statistic for this debate: women and men differ on abortion support by only 5%. Women support it at a 63% clip while men do at a 58% rate.
I think that comparison illuminating and makes it doubtful that the main motivation behind the pro-life movement is animus towards women, men wanting to make women subservient or second class citizens, or a Handmaid's Tale type scenario.
Public Opinion on Abortion
While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.
Given that women vote at a slightly higher rate than men and that they make up a slightly higher percentage of the population, it seems that pro choice supporters would do well to focus on pro-life women. I might be wrong, but I think the best way to persuade them is to (1) admit they exist, (2) don't berate them, and (3) address their concern.
But maybe I'm too naive. Maybe it's easier and more effective to advocate a false narrative that the pro-life movement is really about enslaving women to stir up other grievances within that population and turn them to the pro choice movement.
I will ignore the “enslaving” crap that ruined your post.
That's kind of an odd analysis of statistics, Brad. You've attributed a why to these answers when the data you've linked supports a who. Where did you get your why?Another statistic for this debate: women and men differ on abortion support by only 5%. Women support it at a 63% clip while men do at a 58% rate.
I think that comparison illuminating and makes it doubtful that the main motivation behind the pro-life movement is animus towards women, men wanting to make women subservient or second class citizens, or a Handmaid's Tale type scenario.
Public Opinion on Abortion
While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.
Given that women vote at a slightly higher rate than men and that they make up a slightly higher percentage of the population, it seems that pro choice supporters would do well to focus on pro-life women. I might be wrong, but I think the best way to persuade them is to (1) admit they exist, (2) don't berate them, and (3) address their concern.
But maybe I'm too naive. Maybe it's easier and more effective to advocate a false narrative that the pro-life movement is really about enslaving women to stir up other grievances within that population and turn them to the pro choice movement.
Not trying to be harsh, but without some data that digs into underlying motivations for positions (particularly in the 42% you are attributing a why to), aren't you just doing the same sort of thing you don't like the people shouting "Handmaid's Tale" doing?
I think you are misreading Brad's post, MTIOF. I think he was suggesting (not entirely fairly) that liberal opponents of the latest Supreme Court action are exclusively using that "enslaving" messaging towards pro-life women...not that it is his opinion.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Re-read what I wrote. Notice I said it's a false narrative.
There is still a partisan divide in those numbers that, if you break it down by state, will ensure abortion is illegal in some (maybe all?) Republican states. Also, these stats don't tell you how important this issue is to each grouping--so maybe 70% of people in Kentucky are pro-choice, but they are also economically more in line with the Republican, pro-lifers and value that higher. Lots of variables.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Just when I thought the democrats couldn’t be more disgusting . . .- Latest: CO. Hoosier
-
-
-