[quote=njtosd][quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]

FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.[/quote]

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you’ve described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can’t introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn’t make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.