Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet the pro-abortionists and the OP especially show no proof that aborting the life growing inside her will save her life anymore than her current course of tx. For certainty the abortion takes an innocent life.
Fact: she is getting the treatment she needs currently and her pregnancy is not stopping her from obtaining treatment.
It is considered lower risk to begin chemo at 12 weeks. However, she cannot postpone treatment until then, and in fact should never have postponed treatment as much as she already has. The reason for the controversy is because the risk of the chemo causing the pregnancy to terminate is so high, the DR government considers it abortion - that's why the treatment was postponed. If the fetus is to die due to her treatment, she could be charged.
Different cancer and different chemos have different effects on pregnancy. My chemo could have been administered to a woman in the last trimester with only a doubled chance of spontaneous abortion that would likely kill the mother. Any earlier and the risk for birth defects were too high. Obviously reproductive cancers (among the most likely for a woman to get in childbearing age besides blood cancers) are the most serious.
Well then have you sent her money for an airline ticket to the US so she can get her abortion ?
I don't even have the money to get my port removed from my own cancer treatment, much less needed follow up, thank you very much.
The issue is less about a surgical abortion than that the DR government considers this chemotherapy during the first trimester to be chemical abortion. Other cancers and chemos have different effects on a fetus.
You forgot the "IMO" before "she shouldn't............"
No I didn't - she is 16 - 16 yr olds should not be sexually active. This is a universal moral truth. People who think otherwise are immoral - as are those who advocate for abortion on demand.
Because 16 year olds have been getting pregnant since forever. Even in times that are considered more moral than today. No amount of wishful thinking will ever stop 16 year olds from getting pregnant. And it is besides the point anyway.
Bottom line. 2 lives are at risk in anti-abortion terms. Is it alright to jeopardize one life in benefit of the other? Especially when the life being protected actually needs the original life to survive? That's the philosophical debate.
No I didn't - she is 16 - 16 yr olds should not be sexually active. This is a universal moral truth. People who thin otherwise are immoral.
Should she have been pregnant? No. Absolutely not. No one is arguing that.
But being sexually active at 16 has no bearing on this conversation. Pretend it was 25 year old married woman who was pregnant and had her LIFE SAVING chemotherapy delayed because she was 8 weeks pregnant. Age has no bearing on this conversation.
Poor girl. The fetus will now be under high risk of miscarriage because of the chemo which could be much more destructive to her body than a safe abortion would. All the more reason why abortion should be legal on demand.
Ironic post of the day - you want to kill a human life and you are think that you are upholding moral standards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
