Texas Republicans Continue War on Women's Health

[OldRegular]

It is really a shame that a supposed Christian supports the War on Women as well as the genocide of African Americans.

Since Roe v. Wade almost 30 million women have been murdered by abortion.

PP was organized for the purposes of genocide of the "mud races" in the US according to its founder Margaret Sanger. And that has come to pass. African Americans make up 13% of the US population but 36% of abortions. The most dangerous place in America is a black woman's womb.

Since Roe v. Wade (1973) about:

204,000 blacks have died from AIDS.
306,000 blacks have died from violent crime.
370,000 blacks have died in accidents.
1,638,350 blacks have died from cancer.
2,266,789 blacks have died from heart disease.
13,000,000 blacks have been aborted.

And Crabtownboy supports this racist genocide? How utterly sad.

Great post TC. Thanks for pointing out the true goal of PP.

 

[OldRegular]

The health of women are put at risk by closing the program. Are these women of no value? I am not arguing for abortions, but for the health of women.

You say one abortion is too many. So you mean all abortions, including those where if they were not performed both the mother and fetus would die as in ectopic pregnancies?

What about the lives of hundreds of thousands of women ... mostly poor women? What is their right to life? Do you favor the death of both the mother and fetus over saving the mother's life. In an ectopic pregnancy the fetus will surely die regardless, but the mother's life can be saved. Is that, in your opinion, an acceptable reason for an abortion?

No Crabtownboy; no matter how you phrase it you are supporting the murder of the unborn just as your leader Obama and all his cabal on the radical left.

 

[carpro]

So here is a good question, fund an organization that kills unborn children and keep the other programs or get rid of it all. Are all the other programs important enough to justify giving government funds to an organization that kills unborn children? Because you cannot separate the two.

There are othe organizations that perform the needed services , but don't do abortions. Democrats do not want the money to go to them because most of them are church based.

They'd rather murder babies.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The health of women are put at risk by closing the program. Are these women of no value? I am not arguing for abortions, but for the health of women.

You say one abortion is too many. So you mean all abortions, including those where if they were not performed both the mother and fetus would die as in ectopic pregnancies?

What about the lives of hundreds of thousands of women ... mostly poor women? What is their right to life? Do you favor the death of both the mother and fetus over saving the mother's life. In an ectopic pregnancy the fetus will surely die regardless, but the mother's life can be saved. Is that, in your opinion, an acceptable reason for an abortion?

In your blood-lust-induced blindness in search of any available excuse to slaughter infants...you may have missed articles such as this:

http:////www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24888923/

How many more heart-warming stories such as this are we robbed of since the infanticide enthusiasts deny such occurences and insist on murdering the infant prior to the opportunity to do more research and hopefully increase the survivability rate of these tragedies?

 

[Crabtownboy]

In your blood-lust-induced blindness in search of any available excuse to slaughter infants...you may have missed articles such as this:

http:////www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24888923/


How many more heart-warming stories such as this are we robbed of since the infanticide enthusiasts deny such occurences and insist on murdering the infant prior to the opportunity to do more research and hopefully increase the survivability rate of these tragedies?

The birth after an ectopic pregnancy is extremely rare. Miracles still occur. I have never heard of this happening before. I do know that in the past many women lost their life when an ectopic pregnancy occurred.


Just because I am in favor of healthcare for women does not mean that I am pro abortion. You should have read my other entries and then you would have know this.

My guess is you say you are pro-life. Well, are living women included. Yes some PP perform abortions. 3% of PP money is spent on this practice. That means 97% is spent in other ways, most on the healthcare of poor men and women.

So if you are going to say you are pro life, then be pro life for everyone.

Have a blessed day.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You should have read my other entries and then you would have know this.
Have a blessed day. [/FONT][/SIZE]

I did read your other entries.... I know what you claim; I just don't actually believe you. I'm sorry. That is a judgement on my part, I realize that. But I can't honestly say that I take your claim to being pro-life very seriously.

...And You have a blessed day too.

 

[seekingthetruth]

The birth after an ectopic pregnancy is extremely rare. Miracles still occur. I have never heard of this happening before. I do know that in the past many women lost their life when an ectopic pregnancy occurred.


Just because I am in favor of healthcare for women does not mean that I am pro abortion. You should have read my other entries and then you would have know this.

My guess is you say you are pro-life. Well, are living women included. Yes some PP perform abortions. 3% of PP money is spent on this practice. That means 97% is spent in other ways, most on the healthcare of poor men and women.

So if you are going to say you are pro life, then be pro life for everyone.

Have a blessed day.

Does that mean you are willing to sacrifice 3% of the unborn children?

If you willing to sacrifice even one child then you are pro abortion.

John

 

[Crabtownboy]

Does that mean you are willing to sacrifice 3% of the unborn children?

If you willing to sacrifice even one child then you are pro abortion.

John

And if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of women, by your logic, you are pro death and not pro life. Just be honest about it and say I am pro fetus life, but not pro the life of women.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of women, by your logic, you are pro death and not pro life. Just be honest about it and say I am pro fetus life, but not pro the life of women.

The article that you provided a link to is very interesting. However did you notice the birth was not a natural vaginal birth, ut a Caesarean birth.

For nine months, Thangarajah carried her baby Durga in her ovary instead of her uterus. Following a Caesarean birth, both mother and baby are fine.

When an ectopic pregnancy occurs, the developing baby can sometimes implant in an area that adversely affects a woman’s blood vessels and causes bleeding that could become life-threatening.


An ectopic pregnancy that presents life and health issues may result in the need for surgical intervention such as a laparotomy. In other extremely rare cases, like that of Meera Thangarajah, that’s not necessary.

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/06/02/int-770/

Thangarajah was most fortunate in that the egg implanted in the ovary and thus developed without threatening her life. If a Caesarian had not been performed on her in time she would have died as a natural vaginal birth woulld have been impossible.

The vast majority of etopic pregnancies are not as hers was and the woman's life is in great danger, ofter in absoute danger of her life.

So, then the question arises when the mother's life is in absolute danger should she and the fetus be allowed to die or should the mother's life be saved?

If it was your wife what would you do?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

And if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of women, by your logic, you are pro death and not pro life. Just be honest about it and say I am pro fetus life, but not pro the life of women.

It is this kind of statement which makes people call you pro-abortion...you are suggesting a moral equivalence between the refusal to take tax-payer money (a fundamentally passive thing) to pay for the intentional taking of human life (a fundamentally active evil). It is only equivalent if the state of Texas were using tax-payer money to line poor women up against the wall and shoot them. (except that abortion is more physically brutal). By not funding yet one more government program in order to comply with a state law (there is an equivalent Federal law called the Hyde Ammendment BTW). you are suggesting that it is morally equivalent to actively supporting with $ intentional infanticide. This Federal judge is trying to require the state of Texas to do something the Federal Government will not do....This is why conservatives hate judicial activism.

That and perhaps your insistence on calling it a "fetus" in lieu of "baby"

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is this kind of statement which makes people call you pro-abortion...you are suggesting a moral equivalence between the refusal to take tax-payer money (a fundamentally passive thing) to pay for the intentional taking of human life (a fundamentally active evil). It is only equivalent if the state of Texas were using tax-payer money to line poor women up against the wall and shoot them. (except that abortion is more physically brutal). By not funding yet one more government program in order to comply with a state law (there is an equivalent Federal law called the Hyde Ammendment BTW). you are suggesting that it is morally equivalent to actively supporting with $ intentional infanticide. This Federal judge is trying to require the state of Texas to do something the Federal Government will not do....This is why conservatives hate judicial activism.

That and perhaps your insistence on calling it a "fetus" in lieu of "baby"

I was only following your logic. If allowing one abortion make me pro abortion then allowing one woman's death makes you pro death. We do not live in a simple black and white choice world. There are areas and shades of gray. Sometimes in life we are faced with a choice where there is no really good option, but a choice has to be made.

Judicial activist is when the court does not agree with you. It is widely acknowledged that the current SC has been one of the most judicial activist courts and in ignoring precedence, but no conservative are complaining about their activism.

Now, please answer my question. If your wife's life was absolute danger of life from a pregnancy, would you allow the fetus to be aborted and your wife's life saves or would you opt for both to die?

 

[mandym]

I was only following your logic. If allowing one abortion make me pro abortion then allowing one woman's death makes you pro death. We do not live in a simple black and white choice world. There are areas and shades of gray. Sometimes in life we are faced with a choice where there is no really good option, but a choice has to be made.

Judicial activist is when the court does not agree with you. It is widely acknowledged that the current SC has been one of the most judicial activist courts and in ignoring precedence, but no conservative are complaining about their activism.

Now, please answer my question. If your wife's life was absolute danger of life from a pregnancy, would you allow the fetus to be aborted and your wife's life saves or would you opt for both to die?

You like your straw man arguments don't you.

 

[revmwc]

I was only following your logic. If allowing one abortion make me pro abortion then allowing one woman's death makes you pro death. We do not live in a simple black and white choice world. There are areas and shades of gray. Sometimes in life we are faced with a choice where there is no really good option, but a choice has to be made.

Judicial activist is when the court does not agree with you. It is widely acknowledged that the current SC has been one of the most judicial activist courts and in ignoring precedence, but no conservative are complaining about their activism.

Now, please answer my question. If your wife's life was absolute danger of life from a pregnancy, would you allow the fetus to be aborted and your wife's life saves or would you opt for both to die?

Would seek God to guide in the process, taking man's ideology out of it and allow God to work, how do we know HE won't work in a miraculous way and both survive. Aborting babies and following man's advice is just what satan wants believers to do, can God intervene and ensure both survive? What is God's desire in this maybe like Jesus said with Lazerus in:

John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Maybe God wants to receive glory for a miracluous work in the completion of the birth and life of the mother being spared. After all Doctors know medically what they see but we see God's will in it all. Man interferes with God's work sometimes and for you to say if you don't abort both will die that is the worlds philosophy.

 

[Don]

BTW: as previously stated, typical ectopic pregnancies end in miscarriage. The typical abortion supporter argument is that these pregnancies can kill the mother; while they are serious, and this is a concern, the statistics again don't support the argument (WHO statistics show that ectopic pregnancies account for approximately 2.5% of maternal deaths world-wide; induced abortion, on the other hand, account for approximately 6.7%, more than twice that of ectopic pregnancies).

Not to mention that there are several cases of ectopic pregnancies going full term and resulting in live birth, with no harm to mother or baby.

CTB - I posted some statistics in messages 54 and 55; I re-posted 55 here because it's directly related to your latest hypothetical.

How? Because it's playing the odds. You say I have to choose whether to have the abortion and save my wife's life, or risk her death; the World Health Organization says she's more than twice as likely to die from the induced abortion.

If you choose the abortion, then you actually increase her odds of dying. How does that make any sense?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I was only following your logic. If allowing one abortion make me pro abortion then allowing one woman's death makes you pro death.

No, you are not following my logic....notice your own words....

allowing

...that is passive, but a State which actively takes money from taxpayers to FUND abortion is not a passive action. Then your conclusion here:

allowing one woman's death

I will not take the time to challenge you to demonstrate how Texas is "allowing" the death of any woman....no woman will die as a result of this change....not one....if you read the article...you would note that the program being threatened is only one which effects women NOT covered by (do not qualify for) Medicaid. I make roughly 45k $ a year and my wife still qualifies for Medicaid... Are we the poor and impoverished....who will DIE!!! if Medicaid will not cover us?? In your dreams....

We do not live in a simple black and white choice world. There are areas and shades of gray.

Again...statements like this....when it comes to Government funding of abortion....yes...we absolutely do...live in such a world. "Shades of Gray" on the issue of infanticide only exist in the minds of people who are pro-abortion, such as yourself.

Judicial activist is when the court does not agree with you. It is widely acknowledged that the current SC has been one of the most judicial activist courts and in ignoring precedence, but no conservative are complaining about their activism.

Oh, o.k. widely acknowledged by whom? Arianna Huffington whom you seem to like to link to?? I referred to judicial activism....as a scenario wherein a Federal Judge imposes upon an individual State a mandate that the Federal Government itself would not adhere to....Liberals, do not differentiate the two I understand your confusion here.....and "Precedent"...as you say, is only the sacred cow of Liberals, Stare Decesis is an important concept, but it is NOT the end-all-be-all of legal theory....To conservatives....for instance....it is the Constitution...not "Precedent". (which is what I think you meant to say)...when liberals can't get the majority of sane normal Americans to agree with their insane ideas through the passing of laws through duly-elected representatives...they merely nominate immovable philosopher-kings to proclaim rulings tyrrannically from on high (judges) and then scream about "precedent"....Do you worship "precedent" in the Dred Scott decision???? Do you??? Huh, huh...?

Now, please answer my question. If your wife's life was absolute danger of life from a pregnancy, would you allow the fetus to be aborted and your wife's life saves or would you opt for both to die?

O.K....but you won't like the answer....she herself, and I agree with her....will NEVER permit one of our children to be aborted....we will prayerfully hope for the Great Physician to spare the life of her, the child, or both....we will pray for the miraculous, but we will place our faith and future in His hands....You see CTB.....I married a woman who IS PRO-LIFE you are no such thing.

 

[Crabtownboy]

CTB - I posted some statistics in messages 54 and 55; I re-posted 55 here because it's directly related to your latest hypothetical.

How? Because it's playing the odds. You say I have to choose whether to have the abortion and save my wife's life, or risk her death; the World Health Organization says she's more than twice as likely to die from the induced abortion.

If you choose the abortion, then you actually increase her odds of dying. How does that make any sense?

Read on...

Before the 19th century, the mortality rate (the death rate) from ectopic pregnancies exceeded 50%. By the end of the 19th century, the mortality rate dropped to five percent because of surgical intervention. Statistics suggest with current advances in early detection, the mortality rate has improved to less than five in 10,000. The survival rate from ectopic pregnancies is improving even though the incidence of ectopic pregnancies is also increasing. The major reason for a poor outcome is failure to seek early medical attention. Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://www.medicinenet.com/ectopic_pregnancy/article.htm

I do not follow your logic. Are you talking about normal pregnancies. If so I think your figures are correct. If you are talking about ectopic pregnancies I would disagree.

Ectopic pregnancy currently is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death during the first trimester in the United States, accounting for 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths. In addition to the immediate morbidity caused by ectopic pregnancy, the woman's future ability to reproduce may be adversely affected as well.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-overview

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Would seek God to guide in the process, taking man's ideology out of it and allow God to work, how do we know HE won't work in a miraculous way and both survive. Aborting babies and following man's advice is just what satan wants believers to do, can God intervene and ensure both survive? What is God's desire in this maybe like Jesus said with Lazerus in:

John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Maybe God wants to receive glory for a miracluous work in the completion of the birth and life of the mother being spared. After all Doctors know medically what they see but we see God's will in it all. Man interferes with God's work sometimes and for you to say if you don't abort both will die that is the worlds philosophy.

:wavey::thumbsup::thumbsup::applause: What is this????? Do you have some kind of like....Biblical World-view or something????.....Weird...

 

[Crabtownboy]

Would seek God to guide in the process, taking man's ideology out of it and allow God to work, how do we know HE won't work in a miraculous way and both survive. Aborting babies and following man's advice is just what satan wants believers to do, can God intervene and ensure both survive? What is God's desire in this maybe like Jesus said with Lazerus in:

John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Maybe God wants to receive glory for a miracluous work in the completion of the birth and life of the mother being spared. After all Doctors know medically what they see but we see God's will in it all. Man interferes with God's work sometimes and for you to say if you don't abort both will die that is the worlds philosophy.

Do I understand you correctly. If the doctor told you that your wife was hemorrhaging because of an ectopic pregnancy and that she would die in a matter of hours from loss of blood if the fetus was not aborted and the Fallopian tube removed, that you would choose to allow her to die?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

If I had the choice to save 40 million people, or save one, I would choose the 40 million.


Take that any way you want to.

 

[revmwc]

Do I understand you correctly. If the doctor told you that your wife was hemorrhaging because of an ectopic pregnancy and that she would die in a matter of hours from loss of blood if the fetus was not aborted and the Fallopian tube removed, that you would choose to allow her to die?

Let me see what I can remember from my college health classes oh yes 100% of all fallopian tube or tubal pregnancies end in a miscarriage because the baby cannot survive. The baby would never survive so the point is moot about aborting it, in other words this is not an abortion. God made natural ways in the woman to miscarry this child and with that we aren't speaking of funding abortions. PP is an abortion factory which will terminate normal pregnancies with funding received, so your point is moot. Any OB GYN would by means of ultra-sound know exactly where the child was attached and know in advance this was the condition. Guess what in Texas all uninsured pregnent women are eligible for medcaid during pregnancy. My daughter has had 3 babies and she was able to get medicaid with all 3. The last one she had low plancenta with, which by your belief she should have aborted because it is a high risk pregnancy and PP would have advised her that way. She instead went on bed rest and had the baby without complication and our granddaughter while small is now a thriving toddler. When the natural course of the body is allowed to be used properly the fallopian pregnancy while monitered will always abort itself, sorry that is not a man caused abortion that is caused by the natural process God built in. You see what the state of Texas is trying to prevent are normal pregnancies from being aborted and activist liberal judges are trying to force the funding of this type of abortion. Sorry the arguement doesn't hold H2O.