Overturning Roe V Wade

[SkepticThinker]

Viagra, in its brand name form, is not covered on insurance plans from most insurance companies. However, many medicare coverage options and health plans offer insurance coverage for it under their prescription drug coverage.Mar 14, 2022
How Much Does Viagra Cost? With & Without Insurance

Interesting.

That is a valid point. If the government is going to force women to have the baby then the health care system should cover all the costs.

Well, that's progress of a sort. I'll take it!

The US needs to lower their maternal mortality rate as well, to get in line with other developed countries. It's abysmally high in the US. Forcing women to carry babies to term seems kind of barbaric, in light of that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We do?
If it is the mother's life or the baby's life then the answer is obvious to me, but that is hardly ever the case.

See, it is obvious.

I don't know how you've determined that it's "hardly ever the case."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scary days.

At least the Supreme Court cannot do that.

That's something, I guess.

Here in Canada, we have pretty broad abortion rights, and it's not something that is continually brought up, like it is in the US. Politicians here, even the conservative ones, generally keep their mouth shut about it and rarely, rarely ever challenge it. We just assume women and their doctors know what's best in any given situation.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no baby. When one has to use improper terminology one has lost.

Why split hairs? Potential baby.
Lost what? I am not trying to win anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know how you've determined that it's "hardly ever the case."

Statistics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why split hairs? Potential baby.
Lost what? I am not trying to win anything.

Well if you are going to play that game then potential mass murderer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Statistics.

Which ones?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's something, I guess.

Here in Canada, we have pretty broad abortion rights, and it's not something that is continually brought up, like it is in the US. Politicians here, even the conservative ones, generally keep their mouth shut about it and rarely, rarely ever challenge it. We just assume women and their doctors know what's best in any given situation.

Just remember, Trump is trying to run again and he gets his best ideas from Russia, pray for Ukraine suddenly strikes home.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is rather interesting ...

"Our latest research, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, shows what happens to women’s existing children. Consistent with mothers’ concerns that raising a new child would limit their ability to care for their existing children, we found significantly worse socioeconomic outcomes for children whose mothers were denied abortions than those who received them: a greater chance of living below the poverty level (72 percent compared to 55 percent) or living in a household without enough money to cover food, housing, and transportation (87 percent compared to 70 percent).

We also saw a small but significant reduction in achieving developmental milestones among children whose mothers were denied abortions compared to those who received them, possibly related to the increased financial strain on the family.

Among women who seek an abortion but are denied it, more than 90 percent choose to keep and raise the child rather than place it for adoption. What is life like for these children? We compared children born after their mothers were denied abortions to the next children born to women who received abortions. Writing in JAMA Pediatrics, we showed that children born to women who were denied abortions fared worse. They were more likely to live in households where there wasn’t enough money to pay for basic living expenses. Women are also much more likely to report poor maternal bonding — feeling trapped as a mother, resenting their baby, or longing for the “old days” before they had the baby — with the child born after abortion denial than with the next child born following a wanted abortion.

One explanation for these differences is that pregnancies after an abortion are much more likely to be intended than those for which an abortion was sought. As we wrote in the journal Contraception, women who received a wanted abortion were more likely to have an intended pregnancy in the next five years than women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term. In other words, being able to access abortion gives women the opportunity to have a child later with the right partner, at the right time."


When women are denied an abortion, their children fare worse than peers

 

[Trailblazer]

US. Forcing women to carry babies to term seems kind of barbaric, in light of that.

It is barbaric to force women to carry a baby to term.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just remember, Trump is trying to run again and he gets his best ideas from Russia, pray for Ukraine suddenly strikes home.

I'm not even American and I don't think I could take another four years of him. Ugh.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well if you are going to play that game then potential mass murderer.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

It is the same sort of claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which ones?

Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries

 

[Trailblazer]

It is the same sort of claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries

That doesn't really speak to your claim.

"The ACOG issued a statement the next day in response to Walsh’s comments:

ACOG, Oct. 19: Contrary to the inaccurate statements made yesterday by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives. ...

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System reported a higher number for pregnancy-related deaths for 2006-2007, the most recent statistics. It found that 1,294 deaths that occurred within a year of pregnancy termination were pregnancy-related. Why did these women die? There were several causes, including cardiovascular disease, hemorrhage, hypertension, infections and embolisms. A small percentage — 0.6 percent — died from complications related to anesthesia. And 5.6 percent died from unknown causes. That doesn’t mean that an abortion would have saved the life of the mother in those cases, but it does indicate that “modern technology and science” have not made it so women no longer risk death from pregnancy."
The Life of the Mother - FactCheck.org


Let's not forget how many women die from unsafe abortions. Abortions don't go away just because they're banned. People will continue to exercise control over their own bodies; banning it just makes it more dangerous and life-threatening:
Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality



Let's also not forget how many women used to die in childbirth up until fairly recently in human history (and still do in many places). And let's not also forget the abysmally high maternal mortality rate the US already has.

Pregnancy comes with all kinds of risks and dangers, some foreseeable and some not, which is why I think such decisions need to be made by the people involved and nobody else.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't really speak to your claim.

No it doesn't. Sorry, I could not find what I was looking for, maybe I'll find it later.

Pregnancy comes with all kinds of risks and dangers, some foreseeable and some not, which is why I think such decisions need to be made by the people involved and nobody else.

I agree, and even my religion agrees that it must be left up to the woman to decide.

"At the present time, however, the House of Justice does not intend to legislate on this very delicate issue, and therefore it is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the teachings."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Ireland, March 16, 1983; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1154)

 

[Trailblazer]

Here in Canada

Where are you in Canada if you don't mind my asking?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Where are you in Canada if you don't mind my asking?

In Ontario, just outside Toronto.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it doesn't. Sorry, I could not find what I was looking for, maybe I'll find it later.

I agree, and even my religion agrees that it must be left up to the woman to decide.

"At the present time, however, the House of Justice does not intend to legislate on this very delicate issue, and therefore it is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the teachings."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Ireland, March 16, 1983; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1154)

Looks like we've found some common ground. Yay!