Chrissy vs Teddy -- Abortion or Miscarriage?

I really REALLY don't want to write this thread, but it needs to be written, and discussed, so here we go.

Chrissy Teigen had a miscarriage but is 'characterizing' it as 'life-saving abortion' because of Roe v Wade, claims GOP Senator Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz says Chrissy Teigen suffered a miscarriage in 2020 with the loss of her third child but is now 'characterizing it as a life-saving abortion' to support her pro-choice stance in the Roe v Wade debate.

Several weeks ago, speaking at an event in Los Angeles, Teigen, who is currently pregnant with the couple's fourth child, said she'd in fact had a 'life-saving abortion' and that she'd only just come to terms with that characterization of it in the context of Roe v Wade being overturned.

Technically, both Ted Cruz and Chrissy Teigen are right... and wrong.

Medically speaking, any termination of a pregnancy prior to natural labor and delivery is an abortion. Including spontaneous abortions aka miscarriage in layman's terms.

From Harvard:

Abortion (Termination Of Pregnancy)

What Is It?

Abortion is the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus. In general, the terms fetus and placenta are used after eight weeks of pregnancy. Pregnancy tissue and products of conception refer to tissue produced by the union of an egg and sperm before eight weeks.

Other terms for an abortion include elective abortion, induced abortion, termination of pregnancy and therapeutic abortion.

Yes, Chrissy had an abortion. Technically, Chrissy was in the process of a spontaneous abortion due to placental abruption when the doctors intervened to induce labor and save her life. She was 20 weeks into the pregnancy. He was born via vaginal delivery and died within minutes, as expected.

Placental abruption (abruptio placentae) is an uncommon yet serious complication of pregnancy. The placenta develops in the uterus during pregnancy. It attaches to the wall of the uterus and supplies the baby with nutrients and oxygen.

Placental abruption occurs when the placenta partly or completely separates from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery. This can decrease or block the baby's supply of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.

Placental abruption often happens suddenly. Left untreated, it endangers both the mother and the baby.

After 20 weeks, a woman going into labor and delivering early is still a spontaneous abortion, but may be called premature labor and delivery. If the child is born without life, then it is called a stillbirth. If the child is born alive and takes breaths, then dies, it is called infant mortality. Any child born live that dies within the first year of life is considered an infant mortality. And no, the 40 weeks of pregnancy is NOT considered part of the first year of life. For medical purposes, this is not a live child until it is born of the mother's uterus and takes its own breaths separate from the mother.

Why is this important? Because these definitions are not commonly familiar to lay people, or not completely understood, and there is much conflation and confusion of terms, as well as the medical procedures and treatments involved. The national discussion is too important to be misconstrued and misunderstood, because the consequences can be deadly for the mother.

At the most fundamental level, the same drugs and procedures used to induce an elective abortion are the same drugs and procedures used to complete a spontaneous abortion. Unfortunately, too often spontaneous abortions leave dead embryonic/fetal tissue and matter behind, risking infections and other health problems for the mother. The same drugs and medical procedures are necessary to do a thorough cleansing of the uterus and cervix to remove this decaying matter. Not to do so can create a life-threatening situation.

Of most concern to me are those responsible for writing laws that have no idea what they are talking about, and the incalculable damage that can be caused/created by presuming to legislate that which they do not understand... or outright choose to mischaracterize to support their beliefs and/or political agenda. Specifically, those legislators and physicians who state that there is NEVER a circumstance in which an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. They are gaslighting us.

For example, I have seen it said by physicians that it is NOT necessary to "abort" an ectopic (aka tubal) pregnancy. Of course they know damn well that if the embryo is NOT aborted, that it will grow beyond the capacity of the fallopian tube, which will rupture, killing the baby, causing internal bleeding in the mother, and quite probably introducing equally life-threatening infections, and God only knows what else. But these physicians tell us they just need to cut out that small section of fallopian tube, problem solved!!! But whether they want to call it that or not, that's an abortion...an induced abortion... literally "the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth)" -- only the embryonic tissue is removed with the fallopian tube, not the uterus, because the fertilized egg never made it to the uterus.

When medical intervention does not occur, then the fallopian tube bursts (spontaneous abortion -- the pregnancy is effectively terminated), and it immediately becomes a life-threatening emergency for the mother, and the doctors need to remove the embryonic tissue (induced abortion) and much more.

I perfectly understand the dilemma this poses for the most militant anti-abortionists, and that they very much want to make clear distinctions, but there is really only so much distinction to be made before it becomes gaslighting.... and before women die -- often in much pain.

Many complications in pregnancy can be detected before the mother's life/health is in danger -- ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption, pre-eclampsia, etc. There is no practical or virtuous reason to deny these mothers the life-saving medical treatments that they need, especially because the pregnancy will NEVER result in a live birth and a healthy life. It might soothe their consciences to withhold medical care (abortion) until it threatens the mother's life, but it will not save the pregnancy, and may kill the mother.

Pregnancy, spontaneous abortions, induced abortions, and the combination thereof are complex matters. Responsible adulting is hard. But it is what it is -- always has been -- and always be.

This is not to convince anyone to be be pro or anti abortion. Everyone has to make that choice for themselves. My only purpose is to encourage and facilitate a reasonable and thoughtful discussion based on facts and truth. If I have an agenda, it is to stand for the rights, life and best interests of the mothers. Protecting mothers is a must.

originally posted by: Boadicea

Protecting mothers is a must.

What a great post illuminating more aspects complicating this issue.

It has never been a for or against solution. There should be/have been multiple avenues supporting and reducing problem pregnancies. By the tptb making it a yes or no option, they have weakened both sides desire for healthy options.

a reply to: Boadicea

I think she is right in regard to lifesaving, when I miscarried, it was still early, around 10 weeks, however the hospital decided I needed a D&C. They basically cut and cleaned out any remaining fetus. If it remained I could have had an infection or become septic. So I had both a spontaneous and a medical. Many women have no choice in the matter.

You are correct, this issue is way more complex than just any kind of "ban" or of telling people they are "wrong"

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for the thread. You're a trooper!

Of most concern to me are those responsible for writing laws that have no idea what they are talking about, and the incalculable damage that can be caused/created by presuming to legislate that which they do not understand... or outright choose to mischaracterize to support their beliefs and/or political agenda. Specifically, those legislators and physicians who state that there is NEVER a circumstance in which an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. They are gaslighting us.

Like this BS!

An Abortion Is Not An Abortion If A 10-Year-Old Gets One, Says Anti-Abortion Leader

So disingenuous!

a reply to: BelleEpoque

What a great post illuminating more aspects complicating this issue.

Thank you -- I'm glad other people think so too.

It has never been a for or against solution. There should be/have been multiple avenues supporting and reducing problem pregnancies. By the tptb making it a yes or no option, they have weakened both sides desire for healthy options.

Absolutely -- I agree. It is a complicated issues, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Sometimes, there will be no good options, only the best of the available options. And that includes the many known and unknown risks to the mother, and protecting her rights, her life and her best interests. That's too often lost in the debate.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Boadicea

I think she is right in regard to lifesaving, when I miscarried, it was still early, around 10 weeks, however the hospital decided I needed a D&C. They basically cut and cleaned out any remaining fetus. If it remained I could have had an infection or become septic. So I had both a spontaneous and a medical. Many women have no choice in the matter.

Yes, D&Cs are common following a miscarriage, especially if there's any fever, indicating the beginnings of an infection. I had two D&Cs after miscarriages as well.

You are correct, this issue is way more complex than just any kind of "ban" or of telling people they are "wrong"

I think it's because it's so complex, and having a clear understanding of terms and definitions, is absolutely crucial.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

Like this BS!

An Abortion Is Not An Abortion If A 10-Year-Old Gets One, Says Anti-Abortion Leader

So disingenuous!

Exactly like that BS -- Of course it's an abortion!!!

I understand not wanting to minimize the (their) morality regarding terminating a pregnancy, but neither can we pretend that it is anything except what it is with all the attendant baggage.

a reply to: BelleEpoque

I just have to add for this --

By the tptb making it a yes or no option, they have weakened both sides desire for healthy options.

Yes -- and there are logical, reasonable, sensible and rational discussions on both sides. We just have to get past everyone's nonsense and figure it out.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, D&Cs are common following a miscarriage, especially if there's any fever, indicating the beginnings of an infection. I had two D&Cs after miscarriages as well.

I am lucky to be alive. I was pregnant with twins and miscarried one, but they wouldn’t give me a D&C because..
Picture this, old crusty southern Dr. Whispered in my ear “I’m not an abortionist” He literally said that to me.
So what happened? I continued to bleed, and bleed and bleed until it was obvious the second one was not viable.
Keep in mind I had lost the placenta during the first miscarriage.

By some merry of God I have a lot of blood in my body. I don’t think a normal person would have survived this.

a reply to: Boadicea
If I have an agenda, it is to stand for the rights, life and best interests of the mothers. Protecting mothers is a must.

Thats a fine and commendable position to hold.

Who has a higher moral right to protection; mothers or fetuses?

How do you feel about abortion when the mothers life is at a normal pregnancy risk level?

Christ on a Cracker Really , another play on words . ?

They are Asylum Seekers not Illegals !!
Its a Miscarriage not an Abortion !!

or lets just change the Definition in general Like Vaccines

The world really has gone wacko

a reply to: JAGStorm

I am lucky to be alive. I was pregnant with twins and miscarried one, but they wouldn’t give me a D&C because..
Picture this, old crusty southern Dr. Whispered in my ear “I’m not an abortionist” He literally said that to me.
So what happened? I continued to bleed, and bleed and bleed until it was obvious the second one was not viable.
Keep in mind I had lost the placenta during the first miscarriage.

That's both horrifying and despicable. No woman should have to go through that.

When I had the ectopic pregnancy, with all the classic textbook symptoms, the OBGYN I had been seeing told me I was getting "hysterical" and to "trust him," because this was my first pregnancy so I didn't know what I was talking about...

I found another OBGYN, made an appt, and the tube ruptured hours before my appt. Fortunately, this doctor recognized what was happening immediately, and I was just taken straight from his office to the hospital across the street for emergency surgery.

By some merry of God I have a lot of blood in my body. I don’t think a normal person would have survived this.

I'm glad you did survive this. It's horrifying to think how many women do not survive.

Which is why this thread needed to be written. And why these things must be understood and addressed in any regulations/legislation imposed on pregnant women.

a reply to: dandandat2

Thats a fine and commendable position to hold.

It's the only moral and ethical position to hold.

Who has a higher moral right to protection; mothers or fetuses?

Neither. The rights are individual, and have to be balanced.

How do you feel about abortion when the mothers life is at a normal pregnancy risk level?

This thread isn't about the morals of terminating unwanted pregnancies. To the extent that question does pertain to the issues outlined here, as long as idiots and jackasses continue to want to ignore and deny life-saving and life-protecting safeguards for the mothers, who have an absolute right to protect their health and life (especially when the embryo/fetus is not viable and will never be viable), I would rather see no regulation/legislation AT ALL.

All women will have to live with their own choices and the consequences. And in the end, God will sort it out.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Christ on a Cracker Really , another play on words . ?

Nope. Exactly the opposite. I am using long-standing and well-established medically correct terminology. Yes, lay people use the word "miscarriage." Medical providers use "spontaneous abortion." I've heard it when I miscarried. I heard and transcribed it a zillion times as a medical transcriptionist.

I do understand, however, that those who do not know such terminology, do not know the processes of the pregnant female body, do not know the common and universal medical treatments for both spontaneous and induced abortions, are likely not to recognize that their own misunderstanding is being twisted and contorted to fit an agenda.... and to deny mothers the life-saving medical care they may very well need.

They are Asylum Seekers not Illegals !!
Its a Miscarriage not an Abortion !!

It is both: Miscarriage is the common or layman's term; spontaneous abortion is the medical term.

or lets just change the Definition in general Like Vaccines

No need to change any definitions. The standing definitions are fine. We just need to know them, and not let others convince us that what is and has been never was or could be.

The world really has gone wacko

Indeed.

a reply to: Boadicea

Nope. Exactly the opposite. I am using long-standing and well-established medically correct terminology. Yes, lay people use the word "miscarriage." Medical providers use "spontaneous abortion." I've heard it when I miscarried. I heard and transcribed it a zillion times as a medical transcriptionist.
I do understand, however, that those who do not know such terminology, do not know the processes of the pregnant female body, do not know the common and universal medical treatments for both spontaneous and induced abortions, are likely not to recognize that their own misunderstanding is being twisted and contorted to fit an agenda.... and to deny mothers the life-saving medical care they may very well need.

Mate I fully understand that ? I am a medical professional my self or at-least I was .

I'm referring to the MSM and politicians who are all of the sudden acting like 'Abortion' is an unacceptable hurtful word and so now they interchange it with Miscarriage .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I'm referring to the MSM and politicians who are all of the sudden acting like 'Abortion' is an unacceptable hurtful word and so now they interchange it with Miscarriage .

Okay... now it's making sense to me! My apologies for misunderstanding or misreading -- whatever I did. It threw me at first, because I was sure that you were in the medical field, and would know the term, so I figured I was misremembering. Then I was wondering how I could misremember something like that to begin with...

Anyway, back to the point, yes, abortion is a word, with a definition, and it isn't good or bad or evil. It's just a word used to convey thoughts and meanings.

The media is worse than worthless.

Republicans are arguing against the Solid Start Act for veterans reentering private life, which is being discussed by the House of Representatives, because some veteran women might have access to abortion.

The VA announced earlier this month it would provide abortions for women veterans who become pregnant as a result of rape, incest, or are endangered by their pregnancy. As such, the bill doesn’t represent a departure from existing policy.

Here's what Rep Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) had to say about that, and it's rich!

“In terms of making decisions on behalf of women, if you wanna take a veterans bill and make it about abortion, then let’s do it,” Slotkin said. “What you are saying – and you’re saying in front of the American people – is that you believe a veteran who has been raped, who was the victim of incest, or who is having a dangerous miscarriage, does not deserve access to abortion.”

Slotkin challenged her Republican colleagues to clear up any misconceptions she may have about their position.

“If you can’t state it, then be clear you believe in no exceptions for women – a cold heartless, violent approach to women’s health,” she stated. “You want to ban all abortions. That is your goal. Many of you have been open about that, and if you flip the House, we know that you will put forward a full ban on all abortion for all states.”

Slotkin was only getting started:

What the VA guidelines say is that if you’ve been raped, or the victim of incest, or a medical professional deems that your pregnancy is a risk to your health, the one in four women in this country who has had a miscarriage – probably many women in this room – that you are a better judge of who gets to decide the future of their life and not a medical doctor. Who do you think you are?!

You are politicians. We are all, on this floor, elected officials and not medical professionals. If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you gonna tell her she can’t until her fever gets high enough and until she’s bleeding harder? That’s what’s happening in the state of Texas right now.

If that’s what you want for veterans, shame on you! Shame on you!”

www.mediaite.com...

Good for her!

Hoes believe in astrology and crystal power...

How can you ever be surprised by the stupidity of hoes?

Taking it on face isnt an option anymore?


a reply to: Sookiechacha

Or is everyone raped?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wow! She really nailed it -- on several crucial points.

“In terms of making decisions on behalf of women, if you wanna take a veterans bill and make it about abortion, then let’s do it,” Slotkin said.

Loud and proud, no beating around the bush, no hiding behind semantics.

You are politicians. We are all, on this floor, elected officials and not medical professionals. If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you gonna tell her she can’t until her fever gets high enough and until she’s bleeding harder? That’s what’s happening in the state of Texas right now.

Who the hell do they think they are indeed!!! But the biggest problem we have is that they don't care. They don't care that they don't know what they hell they're talking about -- much less trying to regulate/legislate -- and they don't care about the women in harm's way.

But we knew that already. It is quite illustrative to me -- to everyone -- when not even one anti-abortionist could post agreement that yes, we must protect the mothers. Not even one. Even with a list of "buts" after it.