|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Look, BJ, Let me quote the wikipedia page:
Late termination of pregnancy, also referred to politically as third trimester abortion,[2] describes the termination of pregnancy by inducing labor during a late stage of gestation.[3] In this context, late is not precisely defined, and different medical publications use varying gestational age thresholds.[3] As of 2015, in the United States, more than 90% of abortions occur before the 13th week, 1.3% take place after the 21st week,[4] and less than 1% occur after 24 weeks.[5][6]
Definition
A late termination of pregnancy often refers to an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week of gestation, i.e. after a fetal age (time since conception) of about 18 weeks. The exact point when an abortion is considered late-term, however, is not clearly defined. In three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), two chose the 20th week of gestation and one chose the 28th week of gestation as the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[13][14][15]
In the United States, the point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to fetal viability (ability of the fetus to survive outside the uterus). Thus, late-term abortions are sometimes referred to as post-viability abortions.[16]
It doesn't state anywhere that fetal demise is a necessary prerequisite to call it an abortion. Abortion has a negative connotation, sure, but you're just being hung up on words here. Aborting a pregnancy = preterm delivery, voluntarily or not. The later the fetus developed, the more complicated the procedure or situation can be. It doesn't have to be though.
|
Northern Ireland24279 Posts
On November 19 2024 06:27 brian wrote:
ok it was harder than i thought, I don’t want my own personal decisions out here to be quoted lol.
As someone who’s struggled with just regular life at times, and the added stress of parenthood on top of that, with Minibat having no additional care needs, it’s really not something I’d be confident I’d be able to do with certain eventualities. Or at least without a breakdown on the way.
I had a tangentially similar conversation with a friend, who made the point that if a screening procedure existed for their particular condition, many would elect to abort, and that is telling of how society sees folks with that particular condition.
However I made the semi-counter that yes, it is indicative but ultimately it’s not society that has to shoulder any burdens of additional care needs, it’s mostly, at times entirely on the parents.
Had a childhood friend with a non-verbal autistic brother and it put such an incredible strain on his parents even when he was a kid. As a 6 foot tall adult with ageing parents, one of whom is a 5 foot nothing woman? It was life-ruiningly difficult for them for years, but they didn’t get even temporary care relief until he was late teens, and frankly he needed full time specialist care.
@DPB yeah I do agree there don’t get me wrong. It’s an evocative and very charged term, with a certain coding perhaps. But at some fundamental level there is also something to it.
|
Northern Ireland24279 Posts
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real. A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
In general colloquial discussion, Jack Black is pretty on the money here.
On a more technical level, yeah. There are mechanical concerns there if doctors are reticent to perform beneficial procedures for fear of falling foul of some anti-abortion legislation that isn’t explicit in this domain.
I think both of these points can absolutely co-exist
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 08:11 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real. A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this. In general colloquial discussion, Jack Black is pretty on the money here. On a more technical level, yeah. There are mechanical concerns there if doctors are reticent to perform beneficial procedures for fear of falling foul of some anti-abortion legislation that isn’t explicit in this domain. I think both of these points can absolutely co-exist
Sure, but the problem is that when conservatives insist that technically late term terminations of healthy fetuses are happening and I insist that doctors aren’t executing healthy babies then the missing step is the linguistic ambiguity. Their belief is based on it. You can reconcile the two by recognizing that the reason people think that most terminations result in death is that most terminations are early and that late terminations look different.
|
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states.
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 08:27 Introvert wrote:
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states.
And is delivering a non viable fetus in the exact same way that you’d deliver a baby (no execution at the end of it) going to result in the ending of their life? Is a routine medical c section an abortion per that definition?
|
On November 19 2024 08:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 08:27 Introvert wrote:
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states. And is delivering a non viable fetus in the exact same way that you’d deliver a baby (no execution at the end of it) going to result in the ending of their life? Is a routine medical c section an abortion per that definition?
No, but if the fetus was alive and viable before the procedure and then was not alive after, that generally fits the definition of an abortion. Removal of fetal tissue in the case of Simberto's wife, for example, is not considered an abortion under state laws where abortion is restricted.
Edit: again this is based on memory but pretty sure it's true for GA and TX at least, Two states with fairly restrictive laws
Edit 2: If the fetus was willingly* terminated despite beong viable (a little redundant in most cases but you get what I'm saying)
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 08:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 08:37 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 08:27 Introvert wrote:
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states. And is delivering a non viable fetus in the exact same way that you’d deliver a baby (no execution at the end of it) going to result in the ending of their life? Is a routine medical c section an abortion per that definition? No, but if the fetus was alive and viable before the procedure and then was not alive after, that generally fits the definition of an abortion. Removal of fetal tissue in the case of Simberto's wife, for example, is not considered an abortion under state laws where abortion is restricted. Edit: again this is based on memory but pretty sure it's true for GA and TX at least, Two states with fairly restrictive laws Edit 2: If the fetus was willingly* terminated repaired being viable
That’s not what is happening though. Conservative abortion laws are preventing fetuses that are incompatible with life from being removed because using the mother’s organs when theirs never formed still meets the definition of alive.
What pro choice advocates are saying when they argue against restrictions is that you should be able to deliver the fetus late. If it’s compatible with life, as the vast majority are, it lives. If it’s not then it dies, but not because of infanticide but rather natural causes.
What pro lifers hear when people say that is that the abortion doctor has a tiny guillotine that he gets out whenever it’s time for a late term termination. And then they pass laws that insist that any medical intervention that results in the fetus no longer being alive by some weird definition of alive, whatever the reason, is an abortion. Heartbeat acts for example.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/lone-star-politics/texas-women-tell-emotional-stories-in-hearing-about-the-states-strict-abortion-laws/3299510/?amp=1
Sixteen states, including Texas, do not allow abortions when a fetal anomaly is detected – hence the “Heartbeat Act.” Six states do not allow exceptions for the mother's health, according to an analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research organization.
What you’re describing pro life conservatives doing isn’t unreasonable but it’s already covered by laws against infanticide. What pro life conservatives are actually doing is completely different from what you think they’re doing.
|
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
Bolded - Isn't it exactly what "all abortion to be legal" would entail?
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 09:05 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this. Bolded - Isn't it exactly what "all abortion to be legal" would entail?
No. It is not.
|
On November 19 2024 09:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 09:05 Razyda wrote:On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this. Bolded - Isn't it exactly what "all abortion to be legal" would entail? No. It is not.
I am pretty sure it is? "All" is about as broad term as you can get.
Edit: typo
|
On November 19 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 08:42 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2024 08:37 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 08:27 Introvert wrote:
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states. And is delivering a non viable fetus in the exact same way that you’d deliver a baby (no execution at the end of it) going to result in the ending of their life? Is a routine medical c section an abortion per that definition? No, but if the fetus was alive and viable before the procedure and then was not alive after, that generally fits the definition of an abortion. Removal of fetal tissue in the case of Simberto's wife, for example, is not considered an abortion under state laws where abortion is restricted. Edit: again this is based on memory but pretty sure it's true for GA and TX at least, Two states with fairly restrictive laws Edit 2: If the fetus was willingly* terminated repaired being viable That’s not what is happening though. Conservative abortion laws are preventing fetuses that are incompatible with life from being removed because using the mother’s organs when theirs never formed still meets the definition of alive. What pro choice advocates are saying when they argue against restrictions is that you should be able to deliver the fetus late. If it’s compatible with life, as the vast majority are, it lives. If it’s not then it dies, but not because of infanticide but rather natural causes. What pro lifers hear when people say that is that the abortion doctor has a tiny guillotine that he gets out whenever it’s time for a late term termination. And then they pass laws that insist that any medical intervention that results in the fetus no longer being alive by some weird definition of alive, whatever the reason, is an abortion. Heartbeat acts for example. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriageshttps://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/lone-star-politics/texas-women-tell-emotional-stories-in-hearing-about-the-states-strict-abortion-laws/3299510/?amp=1Show nested quote +Sixteen states, including Texas, do not allow abortions when a fetal anomaly is detected – hence the “Heartbeat Act.” Six states do not allow exceptions for the mother's health, according to an analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research organization. What you’re describing pro life conservatives doing isn’t unreasonable but it’s already covered by laws against infanticide. What pro life conservatives are actually doing is completely different from what you think they’re doing.
The only "uncertainty" is that being created by those (willfully) lying about these to make hay with it. A quick Google search shows at least so far zero doctors and pharmacies sued for giving anyone anything and moreover the Supreme court just last year upheld the two drugs mentioned as still being legally available.
All the stories about these laws is exactly the same, they play on the uncertainty they created and then try to implicate these laws when it turns out the medical providers were negligent.
Back when Texas's law was before the Supreme court we went over the language in this thread. It was unambiguous. But people were trying to claim treating ectopic pregnancies was going to be illegal. The stste attorneys General in all these states have also said as much. The doctor can, as they see fit, perform or prescribe what they see as medically necessary.
And again what you and others are claiming doesn't even pass the smell test. You know conservative women have miscarriages and other medical issues too? The idea that the removal of fetal tissue for an already deceased fetus would be prohibited is silly.
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 09:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 08:42 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2024 08:37 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 08:27 Introvert wrote:
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states. And is delivering a non viable fetus in the exact same way that you’d deliver a baby (no execution at the end of it) going to result in the ending of their life? Is a routine medical c section an abortion per that definition? No, but if the fetus was alive and viable before the procedure and then was not alive after, that generally fits the definition of an abortion. Removal of fetal tissue in the case of Simberto's wife, for example, is not considered an abortion under state laws where abortion is restricted. Edit: again this is based on memory but pretty sure it's true for GA and TX at least, Two states with fairly restrictive laws Edit 2: If the fetus was willingly* terminated repaired being viable That’s not what is happening though. Conservative abortion laws are preventing fetuses that are incompatible with life from being removed because using the mother’s organs when theirs never formed still meets the definition of alive. What pro choice advocates are saying when they argue against restrictions is that you should be able to deliver the fetus late. If it’s compatible with life, as the vast majority are, it lives. If it’s not then it dies, but not because of infanticide but rather natural causes. What pro lifers hear when people say that is that the abortion doctor has a tiny guillotine that he gets out whenever it’s time for a late term termination. And then they pass laws that insist that any medical intervention that results in the fetus no longer being alive by some weird definition of alive, whatever the reason, is an abortion. Heartbeat acts for example. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriageshttps://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/lone-star-politics/texas-women-tell-emotional-stories-in-hearing-about-the-states-strict-abortion-laws/3299510/?amp=1Sixteen states, including Texas, do not allow abortions when a fetal anomaly is detected – hence the “Heartbeat Act.” Six states do not allow exceptions for the mother's health, according to an analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research organization. What you’re describing pro life conservatives doing isn’t unreasonable but it’s already covered by laws against infanticide. What pro life conservatives are actually doing is completely different from what you think they’re doing. The only "uncertainty" is that being created by those (willfully) lying about these to make hay with it. A quick Google search shows at least so far zero doctors and pharmacies sued for giving anyone anything and moreover the Supreme court just last year upheld the two drugs mentioned as still being legally available. All the stories about these laws is exactly the same, they play on the uncertainty they created and then try to implicate these laws when it turns out the medical providers were negligent. Back when Texas's law was before the Supreme court we went over the language in this thread. It was unambiguous. But people were trying to claim treating ectopic pregnancies was going to be illegal. The stste attorneys General in all these states have also said as much. The doctor can, as they see fit, perform or prescribe what they see as medically necessary. And again what you and others are claiming doesn't even pass the smell test. You know conservative women have miscarriages and other medical issues too? The idea that the removal of fetal tissue for an already deceased fetus would be prohibited is silly.
Except they can’t prescribe and perform as medically necessary. That’s why there countless examples of that.
https://www.propublica.org/article/josseli-barnica-death-miscarriage-texas-abortion-ban
Conservative women do have miscarriages etc. and their stories of being unable to get the care they need would be tragic if they hadn’t literally done it to themselves.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-abortion-law-means-woman-continue-pregnancy-despite/story?id=97918340
Before this pregnancy, Beaton said she never would have considered getting an abortion. Now, she believes abortions should be allowed in cases like hers and for women with other health conditions to get the care they need.
"I'm personally not for it being a way of birth control. I do believe that there are certain instances where I deem that it is necessary," she said. "Never in a million years would I expect or believe that we will be going through what we're going through now."
Basically her fetus's head was full of fluid instead of a brain and was swelling up. Texas wouldn't give her an abortion because the baby could be born and maybe even live a few days of agony as god intended before dying. She was referred to a clinic in NM but they guess how old the fetus is based on the diameter of their head and although she was under the cutoff in terms of the actual passage of time the big balloon head disqualified her. The Texas doctors said her health wasn't at risk so their hands were tied. The head got too big for vaginal delivery but apparently c sections are fine with god's plan so at least they were eventually able to remove it, but only after 9 months.
The condition in question happens to about 1/250 fetuses so it's pretty common.
|
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real. A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course the doctor doesn't pull out a glock to terminate the fetus. They use an ultrasound-guided needle to go through the abdomen and injection digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus's heart.
The Atlantic did an article on an abortion provider that performs late term abortions.
Hern stopped performing first-trimester abortions a few years ago; he saw too much need for later abortions, and his clinic couldn’t do it all. The procedure he uses takes three or four days and goes like this: After performing an ultrasound, he will use a thin needle to inject a medicine called digoxin through the patient’s abdomen to stop the fetus’s heart. This is called “inducing fetal demise.” Then Hern will insert one or more laminarias—a sterile, brownish rod of seaweed—into the patient’s cervix to start the dilation process.
He also estimates that roughly half of the abortions he performs there is nothing wrong with the fetus
Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses. He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances. Many of the clinic’s teenage patients receive later abortions because they had no idea they were pregnant. Some sexual-assault victims ignore their pregnancies or feel too ashamed to see a doctor.
...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus—or its ability to survive outside the uterus—is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it.
So when you write
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:
in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:
A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section.
To try to claim that late term abortions result in the delivery of a healthy baby are simply untrue. The physician is literally explaining clear as day how he goes about killing the fetus. There's no T-1000 terminator or glock involved, hardy har har, but it still happens. He's not talking about all the healthy babies he has delivered at his abortion clinic that caters to women seeking abortions later in pregnancy.
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 10:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays? That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real. A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them. Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this. Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course the doctor doesn't pull out a glock to terminate the fetus. They use an ultrasound-guided needle to go through the abdomen and injection digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus's heart. The Atlantic did an article on an abortion provider that performs late term abortions. Show nested quote +Hern stopped performing first-trimester abortions a few years ago; he saw too much need for later abortions, and his clinic couldn’t do it all. The procedure he uses takes three or four days and goes like this: After performing an ultrasound, he will use a thin needle to inject a medicine called digoxin through the patient’s abdomen to stop the fetus’s heart. This is called “inducing fetal demise.” Then Hern will insert one or more laminarias—a sterile, brownish rod of seaweed—into the patient’s cervix to start the dilation process. He also estimates that roughly half of the abortions he performs there is nothing wrong with the fetus Show nested quote +Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses. He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances. Many of the clinic’s teenage patients receive later abortions because they had no idea they were pregnant. Some sexual-assault victims ignore their pregnancies or feel too ashamed to see a doctor.
...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus—or its ability to survive outside the uterus—is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it. So when you write Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote:
in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:
A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. To try to claim that late term abortions result in the delivery of a healthy baby are simply untrue. The physician is literally explaining clear as day how he goes about killing the fetus. There's no T-1000 terminator or glock involved, hardy har har, but it still happens. He's not talking about all the healthy babies he has delivered at his abortion clinic that caters to women seeking abortions later in pregnancy.
It's a grey area depending on whether it's more 20 weeks or 36 weeks but if it's 32 weeks or whatever and induction was on the table then I'd call that infanticide. As I keep saying, you can terminate a healthy late term pregnancy in a way where nobody dies. If someone is deliberately opting for the dead baby route then I don't love that.
|
On November 19 2024 10:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 09:40 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 08:42 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2024 08:37 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2024 08:27 Introvert wrote:
Most state laws AFAIK define abortion with the "ending of life" type phrasing, which entirely excludes what Simberto was describing. While there is overlap in the procedures, they aren't considered the same in the law in many (all?) states. And is delivering a non viable fetus in the exact same way that you’d deliver a baby (no execution at the end of it) going to result in the ending of their life? Is a routine medical c section an abortion per that definition? No, but if the fetus was alive and viable before the procedure and then was not alive after, that generally fits the definition of an abortion. Removal of fetal tissue in the case of Simberto's wife, for example, is not considered an abortion under state laws where abortion is restricted. Edit: again this is based on memory but pretty sure it's true for GA and TX at least, Two states with fairly restrictive laws Edit 2: If the fetus was willingly* terminated repaired being viable That’s not what is happening though. Conservative abortion laws are preventing fetuses that are incompatible with life from being removed because using the mother’s organs when theirs never formed still meets the definition of alive. What pro choice advocates are saying when they argue against restrictions is that you should be able to deliver the fetus late. If it’s compatible with life, as the vast majority are, it lives. If it’s not then it dies, but not because of infanticide but rather natural causes. What pro lifers hear when people say that is that the abortion doctor has a tiny guillotine that he gets out whenever it’s time for a late term termination. And then they pass laws that insist that any medical intervention that results in the fetus no longer being alive by some weird definition of alive, whatever the reason, is an abortion. Heartbeat acts for example. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriageshttps://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/lone-star-politics/texas-women-tell-emotional-stories-in-hearing-about-the-states-strict-abortion-laws/3299510/?amp=1Sixteen states, including Texas, do not allow abortions when a fetal anomaly is detected – hence the “Heartbeat Act.” Six states do not allow exceptions for the mother's health, according to an analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research organization. What you’re describing pro life conservatives doing isn’t unreasonable but it’s already covered by laws against infanticide. What pro life conservatives are actually doing is completely different from what you think they’re doing. The only "uncertainty" is that being created by those (willfully) lying about these to make hay with it. A quick Google search shows at least so far zero doctors and pharmacies sued for giving anyone anything and moreover the Supreme court just last year upheld the two drugs mentioned as still being legally available. All the stories about these laws is exactly the same, they play on the uncertainty they created and then try to implicate these laws when it turns out the medical providers were negligent. Back when Texas's law was before the Supreme court we went over the language in this thread. It was unambiguous. But people were trying to claim treating ectopic pregnancies was going to be illegal. The stste attorneys General in all these states have also said as much. The doctor can, as they see fit, perform or prescribe what they see as medically necessary. And again what you and others are claiming doesn't even pass the smell test. You know conservative women have miscarriages and other medical issues too? The idea that the removal of fetal tissue for an already deceased fetus would be prohibited is silly. Except they can’t prescribe and perform as medically necessary. That’s why there countless examples of that. https://www.propublica.org/article/josseli-barnica-death-miscarriage-texas-abortion-banConservative women do have miscarriages etc. and their stories of being unable to get the care they need would be tragic if they hadn’t literally done it to themselves. https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-abortion-law-means-woman-continue-pregnancy-despite/story?id=97918340Show nested quote +Before this pregnancy, Beaton said she never would have considered getting an abortion. Now, she believes abortions should be allowed in cases like hers and for women with other health conditions to get the care they need.
"I'm personally not for it being a way of birth control. I do believe that there are certain instances where I deem that it is necessary," she said. "Never in a million years would I expect or believe that we will be going through what we're going through now." Basically her fetus's head was full of fluid instead of a brain and was swelling up. Texas wouldn't give her an abortion because the baby could be born and maybe even live a few days of agony as god intended before dying. She was referred to a clinic in NM but they guess how old the fetus is based on the diameter of their head and although she was under the cutoff in terms of the actual passage of time the big balloon head disqualified her. The Texas doctors said her health wasn't at risk so their hands were tied. The head got too big for vaginal delivery but apparently c sections are fine with god's plan so at least they were eventually able to remove it, but only after 9 months. The condition in question happens to about 1/250 fetuses so it's pretty common.
As usual, these stories are pretty much all from times past where there was a great deal of (unnecessary) confusion. meanwhile the first story is true to ProPublica form, where any countervailing detail is left out or put at the end
+ Show Spoiler +Around 4 a.m. on Sept. 5, 40 hours after Barnica had arrived, doctors could no longer detect any heart activity. Soon after, Lima delivered Barnica’s fetus, giving her medication to help speed up the labor.
Dr. Joel Ross, the OB-GYN who oversaw her care, discharged her after about eight more hours.
The bleeding continued, but when Barnica called the hospital, she was told that was expected. Her aunt grew alarmed two days later when the bleeding grew heavier.
Go back, she told her niece.
On the evening of Sept. 7, Barnica’s husband rushed her to the hospital as soon as he got off from work. But COVID-19 protocols meant only one visitor could be in the room with her, and they didn’t have a babysitter for their 1-year-old daughter.
Meanwhile there are also these little details at the end
No doctor in Texas, or the 20 other states that criminalize abortion, has been prosecuted for violating a state ban. But the possibility looms over their every decision, dozens of doctors in those states told ProPublica, forcing them to consider their own legal risks as they navigate their patient’s health emergencies. The lack of clarity has resulted in many patients being denied care.
In 2023, Texas lawmakers made a small concession to the outcry over the uncertainty the ban was creating in hospitals. They created a new exception for ectopic pregnancies, a potentially fatal condition where the embryo attaches outside the uterine cavity, and for cases where a patient’s membranes rupture prematurely before viability, which introduces a high risk of infection. Doctors can still face prosecution, but are allowed to make the case to a judge or jury that their actions were protected, not unlike self-defense arguments after homicides. Barnica’s condition would not have clearly fit this exception.
This year, after being directed to do so by the state Supreme Court, the Texas Medical Board released new guidance telling doctors that an emergency didn’t need to be “imminent” in order to intervene and advising them to provide extra documentation regarding risks.
Besides the commentary interlaced with some facts and leaving out details (the state argues, convincingly, that ectopic pregnancies were always covered), it almost seems like any potential confusion is being addressed, as I said years ago that it would be.
I know you have a very dim view of the people who live in the country you currently occupy but no one wants women to die, even though acknowledging that makes the argument more complicated for you.
|
United States42211 Posts
One of the two links was an article dated October 30 of this year. That’s not really times past.
|
The first story took place in 2021 (before Dobbs even and only months after the Texas law went into effect) and second appears to be a little later although every article I have clicked is annoyingly vague on the exact date. Certainly after both of the clarifications mentioned in the article.
|
United States42211 Posts
On November 19 2024 10:50 Introvert wrote:
The first story took place in 2021 (before Dobbs even and only months after the Texas law went into effect) and second appears to be a little later although every article I have clicked is annoyingly vague on the exact date. Certainly after both of the clarifications mentioned in the article.
Is the dead woman feeling better now?
|
On November 19 2024 10:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 10:50 Introvert wrote:
The first story took place in 2021 (before Dobbs even and only months after the Texas law went into effect) and second appears to be a little later although every article I have clicked is annoyingly vague on the exact date. Certainly after both of the clarifications mentioned in the article. Is the dead woman feeling better now?
As I pointed out, it sounds like the dead women didn't get the care she needed days later. Which is probably one reason the hospital has clamed up. But again, I blame the people creating the confusion. Somehow it's very confusing but not a single person has been prosecuted under any of these laws. Almost like it's confusion that, whatever it's source, will be dealt with, and not malice, as pretty much everyone who opposes these laws likes to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
