Georgia Runoff Race - abortion question. Life saving abortions "do they exist"?

It surely IS used and necessary for life of the mother. This is not only referring to extreme life/death scenarios, but also progression of diseases (mental or physical) that can't be treated properly when pregnant, which can drastically change their quality of life at the moment, as well as down the road.
Abortion for medical reasons happen more then you think. Not to mention conservative estimates are that the n of women deaths during pregnancy will likely increase by over 20%. Just look at the US mortality rate compared to other nations, and especially for women of color. I'm not sure where you gathered your data ns from, but it's simply not backed up. Then you have termination because of grave defects that would either kill the fetus once born, in utero or have a severely impacted quality of life or simply incompatible with life. Fact Check-Termination of pregnancy can be necessary to save a woman’s life, experts say

I still regardless always feel that people religious beliefs should have absolutely NO place in our country as we are not a theocracy (though many salivate at the prospect I know). Our personal beliefs on life's start have no place in a secular and free society. Then there is the yet OTHER issue, which is Jesus said absolutely nothing on this matter, not even found in the New Testament, and a God that was very big on free-will, wanted his 'followers' to obey because they chose to, not because government forced their will on them and by proxy all of society.
I always wish the 1st amendment was as big a priority as the 2nd....but alas here we are in this mess, created by religious leaders impact on Scotus.

BobRyan said:

Many religious people know that murder is a sin.. adultery is a sin, lying is a sin etc. They act on those beliefs and have never needed "a theocracy" to take those steps.

Churches in England and in the U.S. knew what slavery was wrong and that it showed confusion over the "Value of human life" so the pushed the government to put an end to it. They did not need "a theocracy" to take those steps.

Click to expand...

are you joking? the presbyterian church in the u.s. was actively defending the slave trade for a long time with ministers holding slaves. even after they put out a message condemning slavery in the early 1800's they still got rid of priests that condemned slave holders as sinners.

BobRyan said:

IS this a case of lib politics playing imaginary health scenario games or is it real?

Click to expand...

Quite real.

There's a recent thread on here that discusses just such a case currently ongoing in Missouri, so yes, it is "a thing". Is it frequent? Not really. But it happens often enough that there's no reason not to carve out an exception.

Fun fact: Assuming that the numbers you cited are accurate, 1% of all abortions in the US amounts to ~8-10,000 women that you would be happy to sentence to die because you're unwilling to make an exception. And in most of those cases, the fetus will not survive, so it's not like you're actually saving anyone with it either. Just needless death.

BobRyan said:

Herschel Walker is questioned whether he would allow abortion to save the life of a mother - as if that exists.

When that happens - Walker's opponent is never asked these two questions
1. Would you also not vote for a law that allows abortion only to save the mother's life?
2. What limits on abortion do you support?

So Is it click bait? A Ruse? or is there in real life - a lot of abortions that are saving the life of a mother in Georgia these days?

from: Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother. - AbortionFacts.com

"While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”​

Medical technology has come a long way since the 1800's - so then in 2022 is this even "a thing"?

from: What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

"Medical science has progressed to the point where an abortion is never necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother. This has been true for more than half a century."​

IS this a case of lib politics playing imaginary health scenario games or is it real?

Click to expand...

If it was soooo small it is twice as baffling why Republicans would not allow it.

Maybe because it's just about control over women.

BobRyan said:

Many religious people know that murder is a sin.. adultery is a sin, lying is a sin etc. They act on those beliefs and have never needed "a theocracy" to take those steps.

Churches in England and in the U.S. knew what slavery was wrong and that it showed confusion over the "Value of human life" so they pushed the government to put an end to it. They did not need "a theocracy" to take those steps.

Click to expand...

Many religious folks thought lynching black people was not a sin.
A few Montana Christinans thought Matthew Sheppard life was a sin.

What if religious peoples opinion is valuable if they contribute to an inclusive society where everyone felt safe or otherwise they can go mistreat their own brothers and sisters in christ instead of infecting everyone.

BobRyan said:

Herschel Walker is questioned whether he would allow abortion to save the life of a mother - as if that exists.

When that happens - Walker's opponent is never asked these two questions
1. Would you also not vote for a law that allows abortion only to save the mother's life?
2. What limits on abortion do you support?

So Is it click bait? A Ruse? or is there in real life - a lot of abortions that are saving the life of a mother in Georgia these days?

from: Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother. - AbortionFacts.com

"While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”​

Medical technology has come a long way since the 1800's - so then in 2022 is this even "a thing"?

from: What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

"Medical science has progressed to the point where an abortion is never necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother. This has been true for more than half a century."​

IS this a case of lib politics playing imaginary health scenario games or is it real?

Click to expand...

The type of pregnancy that forms in the fallopian tube instead of the womb. That sort of abortion has always been legal, and remains so in states that restrict abortion.

BobRyan said:

Are Christians in Georgia being drawn along by californification of Georgia ?

Georgia is seeing the injection of new Georgian residents that moved from California and are trying to institute the same politics in Georgia that is imploding California.

A lot of people have different views on this of course, but in Lev 18 the Bible says that certain lines-crossed will result in more rapid judgment of even a pagan nation that had no access to the Bible at all. And one of those things listed there is killing babies.

That might not matter to some non-Christians... but what about Christians?

Click to expand...

Atlanta has become so California-ized that Georgia no longer has to import carpetbaggers.

BobRyan said:

Many religious people know that murder is a sin.. adultery is a sin, lying is a sin etc. They act on those beliefs and have never needed "a theocracy" to take those steps.

Churches in England and in the U.S. knew what slavery was wrong and that it showed confusion over the "Value of human life" so they pushed the government to put an end to it. They did not need "a theocracy" to take those steps.

Click to expand...

My mother on told of a student who boasted that in his church they didn't use tobacco. She asked if they still grew it. He said that was something else entirely.

Currently, on this website. supporters of state abortion bans are saying that life saving abortions exist, and their existence eliminates any introspection about dead pregnant women.

RileyG said:

It's just fear mongering from the pro-choice crowd. ugh

Click to expand...

Truth is fear mongering.

To clarify, with regards to life-saving abortions, it's definitely a real-thing.

While the number of "life-saving abortions" is only <1% (as in, she's going to die if she doesn't get the fetus out in the next 12 hours)

There's about 3% that are done to prevent complications that will potentially become life-threatening if not terminated. (for instance, a case where the woman isn't in a life-threatening situation, yet...but they know the fetus almost certainly will not survive, and when that happens, she runs the risk of things like sepsis and other physical complications a few months from now)


For those 3%, I would use the house fire analogy. A candle next to a curtain by an open window on a windy day isn't immediately "house-threatening" in its current state as nothing's caught fire yet, but one would certainly prefer to blow out the candle and not wait until the curtain and half the living room wall is burning before putting it out.

Exemptions for those cases are valid and important.

Having said that, I will agree that 3% is still a small number, and pro-choice activists disproportionately putting emphasis on those 3% of cases to advocate for "taxpayer funded abortion: anytime, anyplace, and for any reason" is a disingenuous form of emotional manipulation.

I've likened it to how the early marijuana legalization advocates used to disproportionally put emphasis on the "it's great for cancer patients who need to get their appetite back" scenario, despite knowing full well that was a slim minority using it for that reason, and the reason they actually wanted it to be legal was because they wanted to be able to get high more conveniently and legally.

Society was having a much more honest conversation about this topic back in the 90's and early 2000's (the safe, legal, and rare era)

We've since devolved to "Abortion access is primarily about health!" vs. "There's millions of women lining up for late term abortions because they changed their mind at 7-8 months!". Neither represents reality.

The reality is more like: "There's a small percentage of women who discover health complications and risk factors after pregnancy as already started, and the better option is to terminate...and there's a percentage of people who make mistakes and get pregnant when they weren't intending on doing so, so they want to terminate as to no disrupt their own life/career" (the majority in that situation are handling it early)

They know the latter doesn't resonate as well with half of America, so they build put focus on the former because they think it'll sound more "noble".

Much like with the marijuana thing. they knew "I'd like to be able to smoke a J while I watch this funny movie with my friends" wasn't going to be an appealing selling point to middle America in that era, so they opted to go with "For people undergoing chemo, cannabis works well for giving some of those folks an appetite and combatting the nausea"