Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[crossfire]

Yet they don't "draw attention" to the other women who died after botched abortions that occurred while Roe v. Wade was still in place. The reason is obvious. So, again, pro-abortion advocates are exploiting the tragic death of Ms. Thurman.

Here is a study comparing death from live childbirth to death from abortions between 1998 and 2005: (under Roe V Wade)

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

II.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract:

​

​

Abstract​

​

Objective: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.​

​

Methods: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.​

​

Results: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.​

​

Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.​

​

Level of evidence: II.​

​

Let me repeat the conclusion:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

 

[Shaul]

Here is a study comparing death from live childbirth to death from abortions between 1998 and 2005:

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

II.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract:

​

​

Abstract​

​

Objective: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.​

​

Methods: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.​

​

Results: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.​

​

Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.​

​

Level of evidence: II.​

​

Let me repeat the conclusion:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

That is quite illogical. You are arguing that because one group of deaths is less than another group of deaths, that makes the first group of deaths somehow "okay". Here's an idea, let's eliminate all needless deaths as the target, both needless deaths during child birth and in abortions.

 

[Shaul]

If her bodily autonomy hadn't been robbed from her in the first place, then she would have been free to make all of these choices and still receive adequate medical care to save her life. Then her son would still have his mother.

Too much to ask these days in the good ol' US of A, I know. Gotta punish the sluts ya know.

If her "bodily autonomy" was robbed, how was she able to choose to take the abortion inducing drugs that induced the sepsis that caused her death? She took the drugs of her own volition. The potential side effects are well known. The doctors that gave them to her did not provide prudent monitoring. She ignored the signs of infection and sepsis and delayed seeking treatment. None of those were caused by Georgia law. Those are the facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If her "bodily autonomy" was robbed, how was she able to choose to take the abortion inducing drugs that induced the sepsis that caused her death? She took the drugs of her own volition. The potential side effects are well known. The doctors that gave them to her did not provide prudent monitoring. She ignored the signs of infection and sepsis and delayed seeking treatment. None of those were caused by Georgia law. Those are the facts.

Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. And you're still blaming the victim.

Bodily autonomy in one state but not in another is not bodily autonomy at all. It's not practical at all and creates a ton of (predicable) problems, as we can see here. And in Texas, as maternal and infant mortality deaths are rising.

Why you put "bodily autonomy" in quotations is beyond me.

 

[crossfire]

That is quite illogical. You are arguing that because one group of deaths is less than another group of deaths, that makes the first group of deaths somehow "okay". Here's an idea, let's eliminate all needless deaths as the target, both needless deaths during child birth and in abortions.

Nope. These are the risks pregnant women people must face. Facing a live childbirth is 14 times more likely to end in death than having an abortion. (Keep in mind that these figures are from the period with Roe v Wade protections in place. There was a large drop in maternal mortality rates under Roe v Wade. Now that Roe v Wade protections are gone from several states, the maternal mortality rates in those states will probably increase back to pre-Roe v Wade rates.)

So basically, Roe v Wade minimized the needless deaths.

 

[crossfire]

If her "bodily autonomy" was robbed, how was she able to choose to take the abortion inducing drugs that induced the sepsis that caused her death? She took the drugs of her own volition. The potential side effects are well known. The doctors that gave them to her did not provide prudent monitoring. She ignored the signs of infection and sepsis and delayed seeking treatment. None of those were caused by Georgia law. Those are the facts.

Read the article. She wanted a surgical D&C, not a chemical abortion. She had to travel out of state and missed her appointment due to stand-still traffic and the fact that the clinic was overwhelmed with out-of-state-women seeking a D&C where the D&C was banned in their home state.

 

[Pogo]

Read the article. She wanted a surgical D&C, not a chemical abortion. She had to travel out of state and missed her appointment due to stand-still traffic and the fact that the clinic was overwhelmed with out-of-state-women seeking a D&C where the D&C was banned in their home state.

Reading comprehension and critical thinking, aren't those two of the things that so many states are trying to outlaw in education?

 

[Shaul]

Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. And you're still blaming the victim.

Bodily autonomy in one state but not in another is not bodily autonomy at all. It's not practical at all and creates a ton of (predicable) problems, as we can see here. And in Texas, as maternal and infant mortality deaths are rising.

Why you put "bodily autonomy" in quotations is beyond me.bl

Wrong. I haven't blamed anybody. I stated facts. That isn't assigning blame. I have stated that people shouldn't judge and learn more about the case. You, on the other hand, want to blame Georgia's laws for her death. Because you do blame others, you see others casting blame when they do not. You are not in a position to assign blame. You aren't the medical examiner or coroner in this case.

 

[Shaul]

Read the article. She wanted a surgical D&C, not a chemical abortion. She had to travel out of state and missed her appointment due to stand-still traffic and the fact that the clinic was overwhelmed with out-of-state-women seeking a D&C where the D&C was banned in their home state.

She chose to go out of state, she didn't "have" to. She took it, and any associated risks or natural consequences, upon herself. Any delays at the out of state clinic are not the fault of Georgia's laws. She had control over whether she missed her appointment, again, not the fault of Georgia's laws. Her own choices created the proximate causation that resulted in her death compounded by her subsequent lack of response to sepsis.

 

[Copernicus]

No, I never made any speculations. Pointing out that you aren't open to contrary opinions or evidence isn't speculation. It is just an observation.

No, it is rank speculation, given that you are not a telepath. Please tell me what opinions you think I'm not open to. Just because I do not agree with your opinions does not mean that I have not given them due consideration. Do you consider yourself not open to my contrary opinions just because you disagree with those that I hold?

No, it isn't true that "One piece of information we do have is that proper medical treatment in Georgia would have left her alive." This assumes things not in evidence and is based on speculation. What we do know is that if Ms. Thurman did not go out of state and by her own volition take abortion inducing drugs, then she would not have had the sepsis. That is the proximate cause for her death. Not any action by Georgia doctors.

Proximate causes of death are not in dispute here, so why do you bring them up, as if they were? Do you disagree that she could have had a safe medical abortion in Georgia, but for the anti-abortion law? Of course, complications can arise in any medical treatment, so we are also not debating whether the Georgia doctors might have botched even that procedure. Your "facts not in evidence" comment is a really weak attempt to disagree with my point.

 

[Copernicus]

Read the article. She wanted a surgical D&C, not a chemical abortion. She had to travel out of state and missed her appointment due to stand-still traffic and the fact that the clinic was overwhelmed with out-of-state-women seeking a D&C where the D&C was banned in their home state.

She chose to go out of state, she didn't "have" to. She took it, and any associated risks or natural consequences, upon herself. Any delays at the out of state clinic are not the fault of Georgia's laws. She had control over whether she missed her appointment, again, not the fault of Georgia's laws. Her own choices created the proximate causation that resulted in her death compounded by her subsequent lack of response to sepsis.

She was forced to go out of state to get an abortion. Do you know why she chose to get an abortion? If you don't, then you are jumping to conclusions about whether she needed an abortion. Nobody is claiming that Georgia is responsible for traffic jams in North Carolina, but their law was the reason she ended up in one. The Georgia state government's choice to criminalize abortions clearly had a causal affect on her behavior and the behavior of Georgia's doctors. You are in denial over the facts, looking for any excuse to ignore the role that the anti-abortion legislators and governor played in this tragedy.

 

[Pogo]

She was forced to go out of state to get an abortion. Do you know why she chose to get an abortion? If you don't, then you are jumping to conclusions about whether she needed an abortion. Nobody is claiming that Georgia is responsible for traffic jams in North Carolina, but their law was the reason she ended up in one. The Georgia state government's choice to criminalize abortions clearly had a causal affect on her behavior and the behavior of Georgia's doctors. You are in denial over the facts, looking for any excuse to ignore the role that the anti-abortion legislators and governor played in this tragedy.

Just FYI, she wanted an abortion because as a single mother, she already had a 6 year old child and found that having 2 more children was untenable if she wanted to go to nursing school to avoid living in poverty. Georgia law was effectively condemning her to poverty and probable reliance of statesubsidies. She would have been probably forced to become a proverbial "Welfare Queen"

Thurman learned she was pregnant with twins in the summer of 2022. Mother to a young son, she was hoping to attend nursing school and “quickly decided she needed to preserve her newfound stability,” her best friend, Ricaria Baker, told ProPublica.

Opinion | Georgia’s ‘pro-life’ abortion ban literally killed a woman — and she won’t be the last

Amber Thurman died a completely avoidable death.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Copernicus]

Just FYI, she wanted an abortion because as a single mother, she already had a 6 year old child and found that having 2 more children was untenable if she wanted to go to nursing school to avoid living in poverty. Georgia law was effectively condemning her to poverty and probable reliance of statesubsidies. She would have been probably forced to become a proverbial "Welfare Queen"

Thurman learned she was pregnant with twins in the summer of 2022. Mother to a young son, she was hoping to attend nursing school and “quickly decided she needed to preserve her newfound stability,” her best friend, Ricaria Baker, told ProPublica.

Opinion | Georgia’s ‘pro-life’ abortion ban literally killed a woman — and she won’t be the last

Amber Thurman died a completely avoidable death.

www.msnbc.com

Thanks. I had forgotten the circumstances that drove her to seek an abortion back in 2022. The ProPublica report is recent, and the appearance of her parents with Kamala Harris during the campaign event with Oprah Winfrey, give it a more recent sense of happening. ProPublica will be publishing additional reports of these kinds of tragedies that have resulted from the nationwide efforts of Republicans to limit reproductive choices of families. The MSNBC article reminds us that the Georgia LIFE Act does have an exemption to the total ban on abortions, but it is too vaguely worded to allow medical professionals to determine what might be a barrier to a felony charge. The doctors in Georgia apparently were hung up on the wording “administering any instrument … with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” Even though the remaining tissue in her womb was no longer viable, was this technically still a "pregnancy" or not? The law itself is not specific about how to define a pregnancy.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks. I had forgotten the circumstances that drove her to seek an abortion back in 2022. The ProPublica report is recent, and the appearance of her parents with Kamala Harris during the campaign event with Oprah Winfrey, give it a more recent sense of happening. ProPublica will be publishing additional reports of these kinds of tragedies that have resulted from the nationwide efforts of Republicans to limit reproductive choices of families. The MSNBC article reminds us that the Georgia LIFE Act does have an exemption to the total ban on abortions, but it is too vaguely worded to allow medical professionals to determine what might be a barrier to a felony charge. The doctors in Georgia apparently were hung up on the wording “administering any instrument … with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” Even though the remaining tissue in her womb was no longer viable, was this technically still a "pregnancy" or not? The law itself is not specific about how to define a pregnancy.

Another similar story with a better outcome due to Roe v Wade and the concept of Choice.
Yet another person who had to travel out of state due to the SC and Trump and was in a position to want a child due to the ability to choose.

I had my first abortion one day after I turned 28. I was a single mom to a 5-year-old daughter. We lived in Washington, D.C., in a one-bedroom basement apartment. I was a recent law-school graduate, studying for the bar exam, living off a loan and small scholarship, and working a full-time unpaid internship hoping it might open doors to job opportunities. I knew I could not raise another child while being the mother I wanted to be for my daughter, or while pursuing the career I wanted in public service. It’s the kind of story that people tend to judge rather than champion.

My second abortion was this past November. This time I was married and happily and intentionally pregnant. The only surprise was that it was twins. Now, 37 years old, I had routine prenatal testing — which revealed that fetus B had Trisomy 18, a fatal fetal anomaly. I knew that continuing the unviable pregnancy of fetus B would have put fetus A, and me, at a high risk of serious complications, including miscarriage, stillbirth and preterm birth.
My husband and I were heartbroken. We knew there was only one way to protect fetus A and myself. But we live in Texas. And because of our state’s abortion ban, I had to travel to Colorado for abortion care. The Texas ban provides no exception for an abortion in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities — even for the purpose of protecting a second, healthy fetus.

Opinion | Both My Abortions Were Necessary. Only One Gets Sympathy.

There are many reasons to terminate a pregnancy.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Copernicus]

Another similar story with a better outcome due to Roe v Wade and the concept of Choice.
Yet another person who had to travel out of state due to the SC and Trump and was in a position to want a child due to the ability to choose.

A story with a happy outcome, but one that still involved major inconvenience to the pregnant woman. And a lot of women in such a situation might not be able to find a solution like that. But this is what happens when unqualified, ignorant legislators pass laws to regulate the private medical choices of individuals. It's not that those legislators would have wanted both fetuses to die. Quite the opposite. But they were not doctors with knowledge of the difficult situations that can arise in pregnancies and families. They should leave the decision up to those who have a stake in the pregnancy and those who can aid the pregnant woman deal with medical issues bearing on the pregnancy.

 

[Pogo]

A story with a happy outcome, but one that still involved major inconvenience to the pregnant woman. And a lot of women in such a situation might not be able to find a solution like that. But this is what happens when unqualified, ignorant legislators pass laws to regulate the private medical choices of individuals. It's not that those legislators would have wanted both fetuses to die. Quite the opposite. But they were not doctors with knowledge of the difficult situations that can arise in pregnancies and families. They should leave the decision up to those who have a stake in the pregnancy and those who can aid the pregnant woman deal with medical issues bearing on the pregnancy.

And wouldn't have even been able to have this outcome if the current laws had interrupted her ability to become an independent adult if the religious opinions of a few had been forced on her the first time.

How anyone can see the current situation as good is beyond me.

 

[Shaul]

She was forced to go out of state to get an abortion. Do you know why she chose to get an abortion? If you don't, then you are jumping to conclusions about whether she needed an abortion. Nobody is claiming that Georgia is responsible for traffic jams in North Carolina, but their law was the reason she ended up in one. The Georgia state government's choice to criminalize abortions clearly had a causal affect on her behavior and the behavior of Georgia's doctors. You are in denial over the facts, looking for any excuse to ignore the role that the anti-abortion legislators and governor played in this tragedy.

Forced? FORCED?!
I am pretty sure no one held a gun to her head.
She chose to do it. You even wrote so. So which is it, forced or chose? Make up your mind. Georgia's laws didn't cause her to circumvent those same laws.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Nope. These are the risks pregnant women people must face. Facing a live childbirth is 14 times more likely to end in death than having an abortion. (Keep in mind that these figures are from the period with Roe v Wade protections in place. There was a large drop in maternal mortality rates under Roe v Wade. Now that Roe v Wade protections are gone from several states, the maternal mortality rates in those states will probably increase back to pre-Roe v Wade rates.)

So basically, Roe v Wade minimized the needless deaths.

Well except for the million human lives lost every year to abortion.

 

[F1fan]

Forced? FORCED?!
I am pretty sure no one held a gun to her head.

The state banned a medical procedure she wanted, and since her freedom was infringed in her state she was forced to go to a state where liberties and women's rights are valued.

She chose to do it.

Yes, and since her state banned it she was forced to go elsewhere.

You even wrote so. So which is it, forced or chose? Make up your mind. Georgia's laws didn't cause her to circumvent those same laws.

She made a decision as a free citizen about a legal procedure, her state had banned it, so she had no option but to go to another state. In essence, forced to go elsewhere.

 

[F1fan]

Well except for the million human lives lost every year to abortion.

But don't pretend that you conservatives actually care about liofe and liberties. If you did you would be as passionate about universal healthcare. But you value the wealth of rich people more than the health of US citizens, so you expose your true colors there. Your only reason to be anti-abortion is because it is part of your idological identity. It has nothing to do with morals.