Comments by "Ricardo Cabeza" (@ricardocabeza6006) on "Texas Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Woman From Receiving Abortion" video.

  1. Her life is not at risk. This is not a lifesaving abortion. That's not how Trisomy 18 works. No need to make stuff up to justify your opinions.
    16
  2. Find a judge...? It's the state's supreme court. Do you know what a supreme court is? You seem confused.
    3
  3. A medical situation where the life of the mother isn't at risk...? So this isn't actually about saving lives. Got it.
    3
  4. What about the three women on the Texas Supreme Court?
    3
  5.  @sarahmurrell115  If a baby is born with a fatal condition that was unnoticed in utero and will die weeks after it's birth, should we allow for the immediate termination when it's born? If not, why do you want babies to suffer more? (See how ridiculous your suffer argument is?)
    2
  6.  @Riverrockphotos  I like how you don't name the imaginary case. But I guess then, people would be able to actually fact check your misinformation.
    2
  7. Bad time to mention the three women on the Texas Supreme Court?
    2
  8. I like how in order to make your ridiculous argument work, you have to ignorantly assume every doctor agrees with your opinions about abortion. That's hilarious. Anymore anecdotal evidence you would like to use for wide inaccurate assumptions?
    2
  9. Trisomy 18 doesn't pose a direct threat to the mother. No need to make stuff up.
    1
  10.  @erenyeager8306  Notice how you said the baby won't live...? Once again, there is not a direct threat to the mother.
    1
  11.  @erenyeager8306  The fetus isn't dead. What you're saying would be true if that were the case, but it is not.
    1
  12. Yeah, it's really authoritarian to regulate the deliberate ending of human life.
    1
  13. I am unable to comprehend how people think her life is at risk from Trisomy 18
    1
  14. Probably because the majority of it's citizens elected representatives that don't approve of that personal right. But hey, keep pretending it's 65%.
    1
  15.  @loftw_  There's no bodily autonomy when it involves ending human life. This is nothing new. Get real.
    1
  16. The dire necessity of terminating a pregnancy to save a woman's life? No, that's not what's occurring. The baby has Trisomy 18, which is only fatal for the baby. She wants to abort the pregnancy to avoid birthing a child that will likely die weeks after birth. Due to her previous two deliveries, a third delivery will likely be her last. And she wants to preserve that third delivery for a healthy baby. Nothing about this situation is about saving her life. Don't make stuff up.
    1
  17.  @huyphan2510  We aren't talking about doctors and vaccines. We are talking about doctors and the morality of ending human life when another life is not at risk. That is vastly different from the vaccine nonsense. Fact is that many doctors do not support the ability to end human life when the mother's life is not at risk. Many doctors find it appalling to needlessly end human life, given that their entire identity is based on saving lives. Please, stay on topic.
    1
  18.  @huyphan2510  Like the rest of the nation, physicians' views on this extremely emotional issue are more nuanced than topline results might suggest. Roughly 1 in 4 physicians surveyed (prior to the release of the draft) supported the right to abortion at any time. Others would restrict abortions to the first (13%) or second (11%) trimesters. Thirty-two percent said third trimester abortions should be allowed only when there is an outstanding medical reason, and 18% said abortion should be permitted only to save the life of the mother or in the case of incest or rape. Only 3% of those surveyed said abortion should never be allowed. -Medscape 5/25/22 Now tell me, what's 32 plus 18....?
    1
  19.  @user-qc6cf2ez2k  "These very necessary cases" are precisely what I'm talking about. Try reading my comment again. I'm talking about scenarios where it's necessary to save the woman's life.
    1