Anti-abortion laws kill yet another woman

[PeteD01]

Here is another case of healthcare denied as a consequence of religious fanaticism.
It is really difficult to describe this being anything but sadistic homicide by way of state ordered medical neglect.

A Texas Woman Died After the Hospital Said It Would be a “Crime” to Intervene in Her Miscarriage
by Cassandra Jaramillo and Kavitha Surana
Oct. 30, 2024

The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”

For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.

Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.

https://www.propublica.org/article/josseli-barnica-death-miscarriage-texas-abortion-ban?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=feature

[GuitarStv]

"Pro-life" rules kill again.

[RetiredAt63]

These stories are tragic, because the deaths are totally avoidable.

I'd like to see lawsuits brought against the legislators who vote for these laws.  In civil Court if it can't happen in criminal Court.  Maybe civil court would be better, so financial penalties could be imposed.

[jrhampt]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

[GuitarStv]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

[Morning Glory]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

It worked  that way in Ireland,  actually got the law changed and everything.  It was just a few years ago, and the case was very similar to the one posted. I remember thinking what a fucking nightmare.  At the time I couldn't imagine it happening here.

ETA here's the Wikipedia article.  It was 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

[sonofsven]

Hippocratic < Hypocritic

[jrhampt]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

It worked  that way in Ireland,  actually got the law changed and everything.  It was just a few years ago, and the case was very similar to the one posted. I remember thinking what a fucking nightmare.  At the time I couldn't imagine it happening here.

ETA here's the Wikipedia article.  It was 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

I remember this, too.  Didn't something similar happen in Poland as well?  Eventually someone dies who gets a lot of attention and the laws change.

[bacchi]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

It worked  that way in Ireland,  actually got the law changed and everything.  It was just a few years ago, and the case was very similar to the one posted. I remember thinking what a fucking nightmare.  At the time I couldn't imagine it happening here.

ETA here's the Wikipedia article.  It was 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

I remember this, too.  Didn't something similar happen in Poland as well?  Eventually someone dies who gets a lot of attention and the laws change.

Sadly, in the US, it has to be the right woman that has to die in these circumstances. The sort of woman who convinces conservatives that the law needs to be fixed.

[FIRE Artist]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

It worked  that way in Ireland,  actually got the law changed and everything.  It was just a few years ago, and the case was very similar to the one posted. I remember thinking what a fucking nightmare.  At the time I couldn't imagine it happening here.

ETA here's the Wikipedia article.  It was 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

I remember this, too.  Didn't something similar happen in Poland as well?  Eventually someone dies who gets a lot of attention and the laws change.

Sadly, in the US, it has to be the right woman that has to die in these circumstances. The sort of woman who convinces conservatives that the law needs to be fixed.

This. A handful of middle class, white, Christian women, happily married with 2-3 prior children needing their care, and a law abiding, pillar of the community type husband. At least one of these women being a senator’s daughter would go a long way.

[jrhampt]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

It worked  that way in Ireland,  actually got the law changed and everything.  It was just a few years ago, and the case was very similar to the one posted. I remember thinking what a fucking nightmare.  At the time I couldn't imagine it happening here.

ETA here's the Wikipedia article.  It was 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

I remember this, too.  Didn't something similar happen in Poland as well?  Eventually someone dies who gets a lot of attention and the laws change.

Sadly, in the US, it has to be the right woman that has to die in these circumstances. The sort of woman who convinces conservatives that the law needs to be fixed.

This. A handful of middle class, white, Christian women, happily married with 2-3 prior children needing their care, and a law abiding, pillar of the community type husband. At least one of these women being a senator’s daughter would go a long way.

Agreed.  That's why I said the *right high-profile case*. 

[RetiredAt63]

I wonder how many of us have to die until the right high-profile case generates enough of a public outcry against these laws?

Based on the gun legislation response to school shootings in the US I don't think you're going to like the answer.

It worked  that way in Ireland,  actually got the law changed and everything.  It was just a few years ago, and the case was very similar to the one posted. I remember thinking what a fucking nightmare.  At the time I couldn't imagine it happening here.

ETA here's the Wikipedia article.  It was 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

I remember this, too.  Didn't something similar happen in Poland as well?  Eventually someone dies who gets a lot of attention and the laws change.

Sadly, in the US, it has to be the right woman that has to die in these circumstances. The sort of woman who convinces conservatives that the law needs to be fixed.

This. A handful of middle class, white, Christian women, happily married with 2-3 prior children needing their care, and a law abiding, pillar of the community type husband. At least one of these women being a senator’s daughter would go a long way.

Agreed.  That's why I said the *right high-profile case*.

Plus at least one where it is screamingly obvious that there was never a viable pregnancy - a bad ectopic pregnancy would fit, or complications after a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).

Canada did it the other way (the hard way) back when anti-abortion laws were the norm - a courageous doctor and a jury that supported him.

[Sibley]

You know, every time I see these articles the thought that crosses my mind is something along the lines of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

[RetiredAt63]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

[Morning Glory]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

It's gerrymandering.  In North Carolina,  the majority of the population can vote democrat and still result in a veto-proof majority for Republicans.  The deciding vote for our ban was cast by someone who was elected as a Democrat then switched parties after the election.  It's also insanely hard to get a ballot measure,  for some reason.  In every state that's been able to have a ballot measure,  the bans are voted down.

Also remember that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, so if not for the electoral college the scotus wouldn't have eliminated Roe.

[dandarc]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

It's gerrymandering.  In North Carolina,  the majority of the population can vote democrat and still result in a veto-proof majority for Republicans.  The deciding vote for our ban was cast by someone who was elected as a Democrat then switched parties after the election.  It's also insanely hard to get a ballot measure,  for some reason.  In every state that's been able to have a ballot measure,  the bans are voted down.

Also remember that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, so if not for the electoral college the scotus wouldn't have eliminated Roe.

McConnel's strategy of not taking up Democrat's supreme court nominees for confirmation notwithstanding. Would he let there be a vacancy for 4 full years and at least one more vacancy for less that hat time had that come to pass - I don't know?

[PKFFW]

This. A handful of middle class, white, Christian women, happily married with 2-3 prior children needing their care, and a law abiding, pillar of the community type husband. At least one of these women being a senator’s daughter would go a long way.

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Unfortunately, the people who would generate the kind of interest that would lead to having the bans overturned are exactly the people who, generally speaking, are not affected by the bans. If they, or someone they love, need to get a safe and quiet abortion, they are easily able to and are extremely unlikely to suffer adverse legal or health concerns. So unlikely in fact that they are unable to even comprehend the idea of that occurring and hence are quite happy to support such bans.

[Kris]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Evangelical Christianity is a hell of a drug.

[RetiredAt63]

This. A handful of middle class, white, Christian women, happily married with 2-3 prior children needing their care, and a law abiding, pillar of the community type husband. At least one of these women being a senator’s daughter would go a long way.

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Unfortunately, the people who would generate the kind of interest that would lead to having the bans overturned are exactly the people who, generally speaking, are not affected by the bans. If they, or someone they love, need to get a safe and quiet abortion, they are easily able to and are extremely unlikely to suffer adverse legal or health concerns. So unlikely in fact that they are unable to even comprehend the idea of that occurring and hence are quite happy to support such bans.

Quiet safe illegal abortions have always been available if there is enough money.

Not every religion believes the soul is in the embryo so early.  So again people are imposing their religious beliefs on others.

I was thinking of something that goes wrong so fast that money doesn't help - like abdominal pain to dead from an ectopic pregnancy in hours, or a sudden miscarriage where a D&C afterwards is needed but can't be done and travel is not safe.  What if the placenta has detached and there is life-threatening hemorrhaging but the embryo is still attached to the placenta, and the bleeding can't be stopped without removing the placenta?  Are wealthy pregnant women going to move for 9 months to have their pregnancies in medically safe areas?

And in general, given how many doctors are moving away* from places where they cannot properly practice medicine, down the road women 's overall reproductive health care will suck.  Of course that is a problem that can be solved if there is money.

* For example, "Mama Doctor Jones" is an ob/gyn with a YouTube channel, she left the US for New Zealand.  Canada has a points system for immigration and an ob/gyn would be easy entry here, I think.

[mastrr]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

[PKFFW]

Quiet safe illegal abortions have always been available if there is enough money.

Not every religion believes the soul is in the embryo so early.  So again people are imposing their religious beliefs on others.

I was thinking of something that goes wrong so fast that money doesn't help - like abdominal pain to dead from an ectopic pregnancy in hours, or a sudden miscarriage where a D&C afterwards is needed but can't be done and travel is not safe.  What if the placenta has detached and there is life-threatening hemorrhaging but the embryo is still attached to the placenta, and the bleeding can't be stopped without removing the placenta?  Are wealthy pregnant women going to move for 9 months to have their pregnancies in medically safe areas?

And in general, given how many doctors are moving away* from places where they cannot properly practice medicine, down the road women 's overall reproductive health care will suck.  Of course that is a problem that can be solved if there is money.

* For example, "Mama Doctor Jones" is an ob/gyn with a YouTube channel, she left the US for New Zealand.  Canada has a points system for immigration and an ob/gyn would be easy entry here, I think.

I realise what you were getting at and I really should have only quoted your first line. My apologies for not being clearer. I was addressing the fact that the people who could create interest in overturning such bans if they were to suffer a medical emergency and die, don't believe that situation is ever likely to affect them or those they care about. That's why they can comfortably vote for such bans.

And the reality is, is that it is extremely unlikely to ever affect them. Medical emergencies such as those you reference are extremely rare and for all the rest they have the money and connections to not be bothered by the legal or medical concerns arising from abortion bans.

[jrhampt]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

[Kris]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

We should stop allowing people to have procreative sex. That would stop all of those precious fertilized eggs from dying naturally, *and* all abortions! Problem solved!

[MustacheAndaHalf]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Trump's Supreme Court picks struck down the right to abortion.  Trump's support is strongest among evangelical Christians.  While I don't know personally, I imagine the answer lies in the weekly sermons in evangelical churches, and the people who attend regularly.

A bit of hypocrisy: Republicans are briefly for abortion when they have an unwanted pregnancy.  I recall Hershel Walker paid for abortions, so he is one of the Republican politicians who is pro-life when it is convenient.  I'm sure there are many more, but with less scrutiny they are never discovered.

[RetiredAt63]

One thing that is scary is that at least 1/3 of all pregnancies don't make it to term  - spontaneous abortions in the first 3 months are common.  And that doesn't even count the pregnancies that ended so early that they weren't even noticed.  But it seems that legislators don't understand medical terminology - they see the word abortion and ignore the spontaneous - as in, there is nothing the pregnant woman can do to stop this miscarriage.  That is why lay terminology is miscarriage - the embryo miscarried.  Given all the steps between differentiation of the egg and birth of a healthy baby, it is more surprising that the failure rate isn't higher.

And unless you have had one and tell family and friends, they are invisible to others.  When I had my miscarriage I got so much sympathy and consolation and reassurance from other women who had had miscarriages - and I hadn't known they had had miscarriages, because we don't talk about it.

So, mastrr (which looks a lot like master, which icks me out), how many of your 1,026,700 abortions were induced and how many were spontaneous?  How many were early, when we are looking at something that looks like a tadpole at most?  How many were for maternal health reasons?   How many were for fetal medical problems?  Because you are putting the life of an embryo ahead of the life of a full-grown human.  Who may die without it, or have her life changed in ways shes does not want it to change.

And the thing is, a whopping proportion of abortions are sought by married women.  So they are married, so they are going to be having sex with their spouse, and sometimes get pregnant.  And get pregnant over and over if they don't have birth control of any sort.  My great-grandmother had 15 children.  Many many women died in childbirth (and too many still do) because giving birth is dangerous.  Our babies have big heads, which makes pushing them out difficult, and our placenta is one of the most intimately attached to the uterine wall among all mammals.  That placenta is about 8" across, so the uterine wall has a huge bleeding area once the placenta detaches and is delivered (the after-birth in layman terms).  Huge raw areas can bleed out if things go wrong.  And then there is the chance of post-partum infection - childbirth fever and death used to be common.

And also mastrr, when you talk about lives lost, how do you eat?  Because if you eat meat, lives were lost to feed you.  If you eat dairy you stole that milk from the babies it was meant for.  If you eat eggs you are making sure that egg can never grow into an adult (and if that was a fertilized egg it was technically an abortion).  If you eat honey you stole that from the bees.  If you eat plants grown in agricultural systems, you have indirectly killed masses of wild animals.  If you forage you are taking food away from the wild animals who would have otherwise eaten that food.  So what you are saying is that the life of a fetus is more important than any other life on earth, that of adult humans, that of every other living thing on the planet.  Please explain why a fetus is the most important life on earth?  And please do not talk about its soul, since we can believe we know when the soul enters the body but there is not evidence for any one time and religious opinion differs, and if there is a soul in a very early embryo, in eternity does it matter whether it returns after a few days or a few years or a few decades?  We all die.


And of course from the planet's viewpoint, if it were sentient, it might be wishing for major climate change to get rid of its major parasite problem.  That would be us, the greedy invasive species that not only does great damage on its own but introduces other invasive species all over the world to do more damage.  Basically, from a planetary viewpoint we are a plague with lots of secondary infections.
 

[GuitarStv]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

Sure they are.  Every life is important.  There are medical arguments to be made for why a fetus shouldn't be considered the same way that a born child should, but fundamentally I think the problem comes down simply to a question of bodily autonomy.

If your neighbour is dying of a kidney problem and you are a kidney donor match, should the government force you to donate your kidney?  I'd argue no.  Even if the neighbour dies because of this choice.  It's not that the neighbour's life isn't important . . . it's that your bodily autonomy and choice of what to do with your own body is more important.  By the same token, a fetus that is growing in a woman should be removed if the woman doesn't want the fetus to grow in her.  Even if it means that the fetus will die.  (FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)  It's not because the life of the fetus is unimportant, it's because the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent.

The government can't be allowed to force you to perform unwanted medical procedures, be they organ transplants or carrying a child to term.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

(FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)

California is a heavily Democratic state.  There, abortion is banned when the fetus is viable at (usually) 24-26 weeks.  Even assuming the U.S. adopted the most generous abortion laws, abortion and viability wouldn't overlap.

[GuitarStv]

(FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)

California is a heavily Democratic state.  There, abortion is banned when the fetus is viable at (usually) 24-26 weeks.  Even assuming the U.S. adopted the most generous abortion laws, abortion and viability wouldn't overlap.

Yep, my understanding is that this is pretty typical.  They're trying to do everything they can to both ensure bodily autonomy for the woman and safety for the fetus.

[reeshau]

We moved to Ireland shortly before the constitutional referendum on abortion.  I wish I had one of the signs from the advocacy side.  Their slogan was: "Trust Women."

[mastrr]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

I value all life equally.  100% of humans die and a vast majority by natural means.  Using that logic, why should we waste our time worrying about any life?

[RetiredAt63]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

I value all life equally.  100% of humans die and a vast majority by natural means.  Using that logic, why should we waste our time worrying about any life?

Using that logic, why put an embryo/fetus ahead of an actual person?  That is not valuing all life equally, it is prioritizing.  Quit worrying about other people's decisions, you make yours and let them make theirs.

[SunnyDays]

@RetiredAt63, bravo to your last 2 posts.  Scientists are so logical!  When it comes to abortion, most people just can’t get past emotions.

[FIRE Artist]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

I value all life equally.  100% of humans die and a vast majority by natural means.  Using that logic, why should we waste our time worrying about any life?

Nobody values all life equally.  Nobody.  So just stop. 

[Just Joe]

These stories are tragic, because the deaths are totally avoidable.

I'd like to see lawsuits brought against the legislators who vote for these laws.  In civil Court if it can't happen in criminal Court.  Maybe civil court would be better, so financial penalties could be imposed.

I want to see that SO MUCH.

[RetiredAt63]

@RetiredAt63, bravo to your last 2 posts.  Scientists are so logical!  When it comes to abortion, most people just can’t get past emotions.

It's not just that I am a scientist, I am a biologist.  I can't speak for all biologists, but it means I see things from a different viewpoint. 

I do have emotions about this, heavy duty ones, but they are on the other side.  I want a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to be able to not be pregnant (this starts with the right to say no, and when the answer is yes birth control first because it is easier, but abortion as backup).  I want a woman having a miscarriage to get good medical care.  I want a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to get good medical care.  I want a woman who is having problems later in the pregnancy to have good medical care.  I want every baby born to be healthy and wanted.  I want an incredibly low maternal mortality rate.  These horrible anti-abortion laws work against all of these things.  Yes, horrible, as in inspiring horror, I am horrified at the news coming out of the US these days.

I'm also old enough to remember the bad times when birth control and abortions were illegal.  Some of it was when I was too young to understand what I was seeing but have since figured it out.   And I've watched friends and their families still dealing with issues from back then.  I want my daughter and her peers, and my granddaughter and her peers, to not have to deal with this.

So I hope lots and lots of Americans vote blue next week.  And when our turn comes, because Canada is heading towards an election at some point fairly soon, I hope we vote red and orange and green, not blue.

That got pretty long, and emotional.

[jrhampt]

Yes.  I'd like people to care about women's lives.  I voted on the first day of early voting last week, along with my husband and several of my friends. 

[mm1970]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Because people are simplistic creatures, and many are unwilling or UNABLE to see nuance.  Like: abortion bad.  You add in, "well what if???" and the freeze.

But honestly, so many of the comments I read about this are "but all these laws have an exception for the life of the mother", and you will never, ever, EVER convince them that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS - it matters what actually HAPPENS IN PRACTICE.  The intent isn't what is important - the action is important.

[Kris]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Because people are simplistic creatures, and many are unwilling or UNABLE to see nuance.  Like: abortion bad.  You add in, "well what if???" and the freeze.

But honestly, so many of the comments I read about this are "but all these laws have an exception for the life of the mother", and you will never, ever, EVER convince them that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS - it matters what actually HAPPENS IN PRACTICE.  The intent isn't what is important - the action is important.

Yes.

And people with no empathy cannot, or refuse to, imagine what actually happens in real life, and play those situations out.

It is very convenient to take the side of a fertilized embryo and believe you are being “logical.”

[mastrr]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

I value all life equally.  100% of humans die and a vast majority by natural means.  Using that logic, why should we waste our time worrying about any life?

Using that logic, why put an embryo/fetus ahead of an actual person?  That is not valuing all life equally, it is prioritizing.  Quit worrying about other people's decisions, you make yours and let them make theirs.

I'm not, but it seems like you're discriminating based on someones age and specifically against the young.  Should the young not have a right to their life?

[mastrr]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Because people are simplistic creatures, and many are unwilling or UNABLE to see nuance.  Like: abortion bad.  You add in, "well what if???" and the freeze.

But honestly, so many of the comments I read about this are "but all these laws have an exception for the life of the mother", and you will never, ever, EVER convince them that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS - it matters what actually HAPPENS IN PRACTICE.  The intent isn't what is important - the action is important.

Yes.

And people with no empathy cannot, or refuse to, imagine what actually happens in real life, and play those situations out.

It is very convenient to take the side of a fertilized embryo and believe you are being “logical.”

It has nothing to do with convenience.   

[mastrr]

Yes.  I'd like people to care about women's lives.

Me too.

[Kris]

What I do not understand is why women vote for this. It is them, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, as much as anyone else, that the legislation targets.

Money may help them in some situations.  But it won't help every time, not in emergency situations where their money can't get care in time.  Or when the ob/gyns have moved elsewhere.

 Since some think the soul is there at conception, it apparently doesn't matter that a tiny baby soul that is in a embryo that miscarried, or dies at birth or shortly after, experiences only pain?

Because people are simplistic creatures, and many are unwilling or UNABLE to see nuance.  Like: abortion bad.  You add in, "well what if???" and the freeze.

But honestly, so many of the comments I read about this are "but all these laws have an exception for the life of the mother", and you will never, ever, EVER convince them that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS - it matters what actually HAPPENS IN PRACTICE.  The intent isn't what is important - the action is important.

Yes.

And people with no empathy cannot, or refuse to, imagine what actually happens in real life, and play those situations out.

It is very convenient to take the side of a fertilized embryo and believe you are being “logical.”

It has nothing to do with convenience.

I believe you don’t think it does.

But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on that.

[mastrr]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

Sure they are.  Every life is important.  There are medical arguments to be made for why a fetus shouldn't be considered the same way that a born child should, but fundamentally I think the problem comes down simply to a question of bodily autonomy.

If your neighbour is dying of a kidney problem and you are a kidney donor match, should the government force you to donate your kidney?  I'd argue no.  Even if the neighbour dies because of this choice.  It's not that the neighbour's life isn't important . . . it's that your bodily autonomy and choice of what to do with your own body is more important.  By the same token, a fetus that is growing in a woman should be removed if the woman doesn't want the fetus to grow in her.  Even if it means that the fetus will die.  (FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)  It's not because the life of the fetus is unimportant, it's because the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent.

The government can't be allowed to force you to perform unwanted medical procedures, be they organ transplants or carrying a child to term.

I don't think it's a question of law but of morality.  I think it's important to factor in the relationship of mother with a child in her womb vs. neighbors.  When you have an abortion you are taking direct action and inflicting violence on an innocent human being.

[Kris]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

Sure they are.  Every life is important.  There are medical arguments to be made for why a fetus shouldn't be considered the same way that a born child should, but fundamentally I think the problem comes down simply to a question of bodily autonomy.

If your neighbour is dying of a kidney problem and you are a kidney donor match, should the government force you to donate your kidney?  I'd argue no.  Even if the neighbour dies because of this choice.  It's not that the neighbour's life isn't important . . . it's that your bodily autonomy and choice of what to do with your own body is more important.  By the same token, a fetus that is growing in a woman should be removed if the woman doesn't want the fetus to grow in her.  Even if it means that the fetus will die.  (FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)  It's not because the life of the fetus is unimportant, it's because the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent.

The government can't be allowed to force you to perform unwanted medical procedures, be they organ transplants or carrying a child to term.

I don't think it's a question of law but of morality.  I think it's important to factor in the relationship of mother with a child in her womb vs. neighbors.  When you have an abortion you are taking direct action and inflicting violence on an innocent human being.

Morality is a you thing.

That has nothing to do with anyone else’s decisions.

[jeninco]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

Sure they are.  Every life is important.  There are medical arguments to be made for why a fetus shouldn't be considered the same way that a born child should, but fundamentally I think the problem comes down simply to a question of bodily autonomy.

If your neighbour is dying of a kidney problem and you are a kidney donor match, should the government force you to donate your kidney?  I'd argue no.  Even if the neighbour dies because of this choice.  It's not that the neighbour's life isn't important . . . it's that your bodily autonomy and choice of what to do with your own body is more important.  By the same token, a fetus that is growing in a woman should be removed if the woman doesn't want the fetus to grow in her.  Even if it means that the fetus will die.  (FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)  It's not because the life of the fetus is unimportant, it's because the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent.

The government can't be allowed to force you to perform unwanted medical procedures, be they organ transplants or carrying a child to term.

I don't think it's a question of law but of morality.  I think it's important to factor in the relationship of mother with a child in her womb vs. neighbors.  When you have an abortion you are taking direct action and inflicting violence on an innocent human being.

Morality is a you thing.

That has nothing to do with anyone else’s decisions.

When you outlaw abortion you are (frequently) taking immediate action against the life, health, and/or happiness of an existing (mostly, but not always) adult human being. Who is in the best position to decide what to do with HER OWN BODY.  Should a girl who has been raped have her entire future upended because you don't believe in her right to her own body and life? How about a new mother who is just coming out of the fog of postpartum depression?  Really, what about any woman who isn't in a position to be a responsible and good parent at that time? Shouldn't it be her choice to make?

Please go troll some other place -- I'm sure you can find plenty of company that believes women aren't full humans with the right to physical autonomy over their own bodies, and that women bleeding to death in parking lots is somehow not a real thing. And folks that don't bother learning the first damn thing about female and reproductive biology while passing laws that govern both of those.

[PeteD01]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

Sure they are.  Every life is important.  There are medical arguments to be made for why a fetus shouldn't be considered the same way that a born child should, but fundamentally I think the problem comes down simply to a question of bodily autonomy.

If your neighbour is dying of a kidney problem and you are a kidney donor match, should the government force you to donate your kidney?  I'd argue no.  Even if the neighbour dies because of this choice.  It's not that the neighbour's life isn't important . . . it's that your bodily autonomy and choice of what to do with your own body is more important.  By the same token, a fetus that is growing in a woman should be removed if the woman doesn't want the fetus to grow in her.  Even if it means that the fetus will die.  (FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)  It's not because the life of the fetus is unimportant, it's because the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent.

The government can't be allowed to force you to perform unwanted medical procedures, be they organ transplants or carrying a child to term.

I don't think it's a question of law but of morality.  I think it's important to factor in the relationship of mother with a child in her womb vs. neighbors.  When you have an abortion you are taking direct action and inflicting violence on an innocent human being.

The relationship of a pregnant person with the embryo/fetus is entirely and only the business of the pregnant person until extrauterine viability is present and live delivery is an option.

Putting concerns about the embryo/fetus above concerns for the pregnant person and their bodily autonomy has tangible consequences that can be deadly and may play out in sadistic homicides by way of medical neglect under the cover of the law.

So this is indeed a moral question and the way these things are playing out now clearly demonstrates that legislative repression of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion restrictions causes the state to engage in psychological and physical torture up to intentional fatal neglect of pregnant people as well as a general deterioration in the quality of reproductive healthcare.

So I agree with you: prohibition of abortion is not a question of law beyond a prohibition for the executive and judiciary to intervene in reproductive healthcare when it comes to abortion.
So pro-life style anti-abortionism is indeed a violent movement without a moral compass and that is how it should be looked at: a moral failure.


(And just to get that viability issue addressed: extrauterine fetal viability is not only dependent on the biological state of a fetus but also on the availability of medical support (for mother and fetus/newborn) and therefore cannot be firmly associated with a particular gestational age or developmental indicators. Consequently, the decision to proceed either to abortion or delivery depends on multiple factors that could not possibly be codified in law or even be fully understood by the state legislature, executive or judiciary.
For these reason, decision making about the necessity for an abortion or the possibility of live delivery must be left to the pregnant person and their physicians)

[Daley]

I don't think it's a question of law but of morality.  I think it's important to factor in the relationship of mother with a child in her womb vs. neighbors.  When you have an abortion you are taking direct action and inflicting violence on an innocent human being.

I'm just going to leave this dusty old quote from Dave Barnhart here for you to chew on...

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

...and if that's not enough for you, since you're all about moral compunction, why don't you ask Judaism what Torah actually says about abortion? If one's gonna start citing moral authority, maybe we should see what G-d's actual chosen people who do understand and preserved the foundation of all Abrahamic faiths and the fullness of what fulfilling "the Law" actually represents, and the supposed cornerstone on which so much of this modern "morality" being legislated actually has to say on the subject.

[GuitarStv]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

Sure they are.  Every life is important.  There are medical arguments to be made for why a fetus shouldn't be considered the same way that a born child should, but fundamentally I think the problem comes down simply to a question of bodily autonomy.

If your neighbour is dying of a kidney problem and you are a kidney donor match, should the government force you to donate your kidney?  I'd argue no.  Even if the neighbour dies because of this choice.  It's not that the neighbour's life isn't important . . . it's that your bodily autonomy and choice of what to do with your own body is more important.  By the same token, a fetus that is growing in a woman should be removed if the woman doesn't want the fetus to grow in her.  Even if it means that the fetus will die.  (FWIW - If the fetus can be removed safely and still kept alive, then I believe that it should be - except in those sorts of cases where it will die immediately after in pain.)  It's not because the life of the fetus is unimportant, it's because the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent.

The government can't be allowed to force you to perform unwanted medical procedures, be they organ transplants or carrying a child to term.

I don't think it's a question of law but of morality.  I think it's important to factor in the relationship of mother with a child in her womb vs. neighbors.  When you have an abortion you are taking direct action and inflicting violence on an innocent human being.

I disagree on two points.

1.  Fundamentally this is a question of law.  If it was only a morality question then people would be free to wrestle with the morality of their own actions.  This is fine - people have differing views and have to live with their own choices. It is only when you attempt to codify a particular view of morality (that there is little agreement about) into law that you run into the sort of debate that we're having.

2.  I don't see a moral difference in the two scenarios.  Direct action or inaction - either way you're making a choice based on your bodily autonomy that will kill another person.  Morally they're the same to me.

[RetiredAt63]

Researchers estimate that there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023 in the U.S.  Are these lives not important?

No.  Why do you think they are more important than our lives?  About half of all fertilized eggs die naturally.  Do you waste your time worrying about those?

I value all life equally.  100% of humans die and a vast majority by natural means.  Using that logic, why should we waste our time worrying about any life?

Using that logic, why put an embryo/fetus ahead of an actual person?  That is not valuing all life equally, it is prioritizing.  Quit worrying about other people's decisions, you make yours and let them make theirs.

I'm not, but it seems like you're discriminating based on someones age and specifically against the young.  Should the young not have a right to their life?

I never said I value all life equally.  I don't.  I kill mosquitoes all summer if they land on me.  They are being good future mothers, trying to have a protein rich meal to make lots of eggs.  I value my blood and unwillingness to potentially catch a mosquito borne disease over her need to lay eggs.  Rank discrimination.

I definitely value a woman's bodily autonomy over other choices.  She can't legally be forced to donate blood or a body part to save someone else's life, so why should an embryo/fetus be prioritized? 

Medical discrimination happens.  One lung, 2 suitable recipients,  who gets it?  ER triage is a thing, its not first come first served, its who needs treatment fastest.   Choices, choices, everywhere,  the world forces us to make choices.

And shit happens.  I miscarried a pregnancy I wanted.  Nature prioritized ditching a nonviable fetus over having my body expend resources on it longer. I didn’t get a choice. At least no-one legislated that my obgyn couldn't do the D&C afterwards.   A year later my healthy uterus (healthy thanks to the D & C) grew a baby to term.

So as I said before, you don't value all life equally either, or you would be dead of starvation.   We don't do photosynthesis, we have to kill other organisms to survive.  Or when you say you value all life equally,  you are not really valuing  all life. You have restrictions on that term. What are they?  Is all life just animals?  Or just vertebrates?  Or just mammals?  Or just primates? Or just humans?  Or the way I am reading it, just men.  Because prioritizing an embryo over a woman, which is what anti abortion laws do, means women are not in the equation, they are deprioritized.

I'm really really looking forward to your definition of all life, btw.  Please remember that viruses are debatable,  but archaea and bacteria are definitely included in all life, not to mention unicellular eukaryotes, fungi and plants, plus of course animals.  So when you eat anything you have prioritized your own specific life over other lives.


Ps I type slowly on the tablet. I see others also wrote really great replies while I was doing my one finger typing.   

But please don't disappear until you post your definition of all life and how you manage to eat when all life has equal priority.


PPS - while you are figuring out what your definition of "all life" is, please go audit a bio-medical ethics course.  You might learn something.

[sonofsven]

My view is quite simple.
It doesn't matter how you personally feel about abortion, morality, the embryo, etc.
It does not matter.
If women don't have the right to terminate a pregnancy at their choice (within medical guidelines), then they are simply second class citizens in our modern world.
If you feel an abortion is immoral then don't have one.