1388
A Texas Woman Died After Waiting 40 Hours for Miscarriage Care
(www.propublica.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1388 points (100.0% liked)
News
33008 readers
2828 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, they probably were just taking a long lunch instead of treating a patient.
Are you really asking how a law can be intimidating? That's like... The reason we have laws, man.
Laws can also be misread, and it's very likely that this was done somehow. The law explicitly allows abortions under these circumstances. Can you explain yourself what's confusing about it?
There's nothing confusing about it.
The law is set up to intimate doctors into not performing abortions. The doctors believe they will be second-guessed by Ken Paxton and his merry band of fascists.
You want to reframe it and blame the doctors instead of the draconian law that intimidates healthcare professionals.
There should never have been a restriction in the first place; women should be free to make their own healthcare decisions free from the constraints of theocratic virtue-signaling control freaks.
How is allowing abortions during medical emergencies intimidating? That should be reassuring.
To your second point, what about the fetus/baby's bodily autonomy? Surely that should be respected as well if it's likely to survive.
The results speak for themselves if you're not afraid to interrogate what happened.
But surely you're more knowledgeable about the law than the lawyers employed by the hospital.
The fetus is not autonomous, so how the fuck can it have autonomy?
I am interrogating what happened. The law allows abortions in cases of medical emergency. Lots of people die because of medical errors every year. It's not hard to connect the dots.
Do comatose people have bodily autonomy?
Are comatose people relying on somebody else's organs who might die or suffer grievous injury to keep them alive?
They're relying on a lot of external support that could be given to other people. They're often given organ transplants (for which there can be years-long waiting list), blood, etc. that might all be used on someone else. Difficult decisions often have to be made about their viability. Regardless of that, we respect their right to life until it's absolutely clear that they won't survive.
So... Not the same case as a fetus at all, right?
If you were hooked up to someone using your kidneys who then died, I bet you wouldn't want the doctors to have to wait until you had complications from sepsis before disconnecting you.
Because that's the analogous argument. You keep trying to reframe it, but we know what happens when you put these kinds of restrictions on abortion: women die.
You can pretend otherwise, but the facts are clear.
I wouldn't "want" that, and besides, the law would have allowed that in this case. This is a simple medical mistake, the likes of which was the third leading cause of death in 2018.
And far more human beings die when abortions are legal. You can "reframe" that however you want it, but that's a fact. Unless you'd like to argue that fetuses/babies aren't human? Or are you going to apply an arbitrary standard of "personhood" to protect your genocidal ideas?
You can call abortion access a genocide, but that doesn't make it true.
You can try to reframe the issue, as many reactionaries do, but you should be aware that the Nazis also restricted abortion for "aryans":
It's about controlling women for patriarchal purposes, and you're helping that cause.
How is killing millions of innocent people every year not genocide? If they're not people, then can you define "person"? Dehumanizing people to justify killing them was a tactic the Nazis used, too. It's a favorite of people who protest in favor of abortion.
Leave it to reactionaries to confuse healthcare with genocide.
I've already told you that autonomous people should get to choose what to do with their bodies. That's clearly not a value that you hold, and want to give a fetus extra rights above and beyond the person upon whose body they depend.
You wouldn't need to give a reason to disconnect the person attached to you by the kidney; it's your body to decide to share or not.
You can try to reframe the issue, but the facts are clear.
Tell me, how is killing innocent people healthcare? If a human being isn't a person, then what is? If killing innocent people isn't wrong, then why do we outlaw murder?
So born babies aren't people either? They're not very autonomous. Nor are comatose people.
You're reframing the issue to justify killing millions of people every year. Why? It's not like those lives magically appear in a faraway land on earth once they're ended in the United States.
Do you think you should need to get permission to disconnect from the kidney machine? Or do you think that it's your choice to share your body or not?
I know why you keep avoiding this question: it shows that you think your bodily autonomy is more important than a woman's.
You can try to reframe the issue, but the facts are clear.
It's a good thing we have dialysis machines so this entire argument is moot, along with organ donations. If the entire premise of the argument is nonsensical, then so would any response to it. Millions of people dying every year is a thing that really happens. I take it you won't deny they're people, but somehow it's okay to kill them?
Also. "reactionary" was a title used by people like Mao Zedong to justify persecuting and killing innocent people, so that's a little clue about how you really feel on the topic of murder.
Avoiding the question is it's own cowardly answer.
Reactionaries always try to reframe things exactly backwards.
I should think it's more cowardly to insult people without explaining why they're wrong. Are you so deep in you own pro-genocide propaganda that you can't even articulate why murder is wrong? And if it's so cowardly to not respond, then why are you not responding to my questions? Are you calling yourself a coward? If so, I mean, you said it, not me.
I have just as much ground to call you a reactionary over your reframing of genocide as "healthcare," which is apparently such an obvious position that you don't know how to defend it.
I have explained it; remember how you bravely avoided the question that would unequivocally prove your "principle" wrong?
And reactionary has a meaning; it's very reactionary of you to try and redefine it exactly backwards.
You can try to reframe it, but the facts are clear.
So not answering a meaningless and irrelevant question about ethics is less cowardly than not being able to explain why murder is wrong or why some human beings are not people? If I brought up a question about using magic to kill gnomes, would you take it seriously?
Roe v. Wade was the status quo for decades, and it sounds like you want to return to it. Therefore, if I'm a reactionary, you're a reactionary too.
Oh, and how did Mao feel about alleged "reactionaries"?
Oh... I certainly don't want that for anyone.
Your surface-level understanding of political philosophy is matched only by your amateur legal credentials.
Gotta say: it's hilarious how far you've gone to avoid answering a simple question that would expose the stupidity of your argument. So brave.
Now go away, you're boring and predictable.
Your eagerness to condemn others for not wanting millions of innocent people to die without being able to articulate why killing everyone else is wrong is really quite telling. As is your use of political labels used by dictators to justify killing innocent people.
Go away, you're boring and predictable.
If you think human life is so worthless, or you're so intent on debating questions as relevant as "should gnomes be allowed to access the adamantium deposits if all they'll do is make jewelry with it," then alright. Have a good day.
Go away, you're boring and predictable.