891
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LadyAutumn 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What else would you call women in this scenario? You're literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump. Even if that clump is going to kill you. Its like giving cancer the right to live and banning any attempts to remove it.

They're literally forcing women to die. The intended effect isn't to ban abortion, its part of a concentrated effort from far right christian white nationalists to reduce women to an enforced subservient breeding class. Have you ever paid attention to the rest of the shit these people say? They say loud and clear what they want all the time. They want to take away divorce rights, they want gender roles to become legally enforced in particular with regards to clothing and expression, they oppose women in politics and in the work force, they pathologically shame and degrade women based on perceived promiscuity or perceived lack thereof.

This isn't a matter of just having people oppose abortion bans. If it was, we wouldn't be here. If majority public opinion was what mattered, roe v wade would never have been overturned to begin with. Abortion bans are extremely unpopular even with many conservative voters. If you're poor, you're just fucked. You have no recourse whatsoever and a lot of people with complicated pregnancies will just die. If you can't afford the cost of relocating yourself out of a red state then you have nothing. You have no alternative but to try an unsafe method in what is probably going to be a non-clinical setting. And even if you succeed and live you can be tossed in jail for having made a Google search and one family member who calls the police. These are laws meant to kill women. They are meant to cause widespread fear and suffering for women and girls. Legally women and girls are not equal to men, not in bodily autonomy or in health care or in human rights. These laws aren't simply harming women, they're murdering them.

And honest to God if someone is dissuaded from being pro women's rights because they feel that a random person online has made an "exaggeration", and so choose to instead support laws that murder women - then they're a misogynist already in league with the fascists pushing these laws. You're an enemy of women if for absolutely any reason you support a law that's primary aim is to literally end women's lives. Its time to stop dabbling in bullshit, the people who write the laws aren't stupid they are 100% aware of what these laws do. They are aware of how it forces minors who have been r*d to carry pregnancies they are likely to die from. They know, the laws are written specifically so that will happen. There's no ambiguity, there's no exaggeration, these are laws written and created with the specific express intent to cause grievous bodily harm to, and outright murder, women.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What else would you call women in this scenario? You’re literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump

Worth an equal amount as another human life, you mean?

You perverting the other sides argument doesn't make you or your argument better, just makes you come off as stupid and lacking any understanding of the issue as a whole.

[-] LadyAutumn 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There is no other human life involved. Or did you forget to read the next thing I said, that it'd be like declaring a tumor a human life and forbidding people from removing them. A proto fetal clump isn't a person. It's not a baby. Its not a human. It's a clump. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings, it is not self aware, it is not an independent organism and is in all senses of the word a parasite. You can screw off if you think that a parasitic tumor has the same worth as a woman, that it has the same worth as a human being. And you're only proving my point by even trying to justify it.

I perverted not a single fucking thing. These laws result directly, not indirectly but literally directly, in the killing of women and girls. Its murder to deny someone life saving medical care. You're a sick misogynist if you defend any part of that. And the people who write these laws are not stupid, they're not unaware, the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls. Its murder, they know what these laws do. They know these laws don't prevent abortion, and every single one of them will ship their daughter or their wife down to Mexico to get one if they have to. They won't hesitate. There is no moral reason for these laws. These laws relegate women to a subservient breeding class deprived of the most basic fundamental human rights.

You've already shown who you actually are so ill be perfectly honest I don't give a fuck what you have to say. I dont fraternize with misogynists, and defending the murder of women and girls unequivocally makes you a misogynist. Nothing you have to say after that has any validity whatsoever.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

There is no other human life involved.

I believe there is which is why we're having this debate.

the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls.

And I believe that what's in their belly is a whole other person to consider their lives.

There is no moral reason for these laws.

If someone believes that a fetus is essentially the same as my 2 month old niece, wouldn't there be a moral reason to not want to them?

I understand your argument despite the hostility, I think if you calmly thought about it, you would think that there could be some moral backing, not that you would believe it or anything, simply that you can see how it could be a moral dilemma.

[-] Shikadi@wirebase.org 16 points 2 years ago

Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn't about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it's okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn't your niece? What if you're 10?

You don't respect the autonomy of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn't apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it's the moral choice when it's literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don't their rights and lives matter to you?

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that's life was at risk because doctors couldn't abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don't seem to care about that life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Flemmy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Ok, I'll engage you on this one, your position at least seems internally consistent.

Let's play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you. You recently found out that she even exists - you didn't know you had a sister until CPS told you she's your responsibility.

An action that risks your life could possibly save her... Let's say a liver transplant. It has to be you, you're her only living family member. And because of that, you'll also be responsible for her - you can put her up for adoption when this is all over, but you're still on the hook for the medical bills whether this works or not.

She's guaranteed to die if you don't give her the transplant, and you would almost certainly recover quickly on your own.

If you go through with the transplant, she has a slim chance to live, and an even slimmer one to have a decent quality of life.

But in your current state, the transplant is very risky - at best you'll see a lengthy and expensive recovery, after missing months of work you'll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Complications could see you paralyzed or in lifelong pain, and it's very possible both of you die on the table - maybe even likely.

The doctors are telling you it's a terrible idea to go through with this, that the risk is unacceptable and it would be a mercy to just let her pass, but they're obligated to go through with it if you insist.

Now, no one is stopping you from going through with it - if you want to put your life on the line for another, that's your decision to make. You're her guardian now, so it's your decision if she should have to go through the pain for the chance at life, no matter how small.

That's all well and good - I've seen enough to know that death is often a mercy, but if you believe otherwise there's not much to say

Now, here's my question - should the government be able to force you to attempt the transplant?

Some of these details might seem weird, but I was trying to stick the metaphor as close as possible to a very real scenario with a dangerous pregnancy. The only difference is - the doctor is performing an action here, but withholding one with the pregnancy.

You're not though - pregnancy is not a lack of action. It's an enormous commitment, especially when it's atypical. It can even be a practically guaranteed death sentence - if the fetus implants in the fallopian tubes, it's already not viable - at best you're waiting for the fetus to grow big enough to rupture them, and hoping the bleed that causes doesn't do too much damage before you can get help.

Not to mention if a fetus dies in the womb after it gets to a certain size, it rots and leads to sepsis - unclear laws and harsh punishments have already led to situations where doctors refused care for both of these life threatening cases, and in both these cases the odds aren't slim, they're none. In the second the fetus was already gone... Sometimes when they induce labor the fetus isn't even in one piece... It's pretty grisly

I don't agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let's set that aside - I can respect that as a belief

So... My root question to you is - Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?

If so, how sure do you have to be that the other person will die no matter what you do before you're released from the compulsion to put your own health on the line?

There's always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?

And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you.

My actions didn't bring her into this world. That's a huge difference.

But in your current state, the transplant is very risky

I agree there should always be exceptions for cases like these.

I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief

You see it as a potential life, I see it as a whole life. I thank you for understanding that it's reasonable one might have this believe.

Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?

See my response above.

There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?

In law there's a lot of 'reasonable' language - would a reasonable person think this is a likely event. In general, pregnancies aren't life risking to mothers.

And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?

If I brought in my twin brother to a doctors office and said 'hey, this guy is really making me sick, can you kill him for me?' I think a reasonable law maker can determine whether that's right or wrong. To some people, there's no difference between the life of you and I, and a fetus.

[-] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

You saying that you don't bring your niece into this world sounds a lot like the responsibility argument, aka "you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment". You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren't the parent. Neither exceptions nor saying that you believe every fetus is the same as a fully formed human answer the question.

How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else? Please, don't side step again. Please, don't give me "it's not my fault they're here, they had sex, therefore they have to do it". Please, don't give me "but I think the fetus has rights too". How would you feel?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] CalvinCopyright@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Don't tell me what to do.

This is the actual Republican platform. The guy you're arguing with doesn't actually believe that protofetuses are worth trying to keep them alive. He just wants to be able to tell you what to do, and guess what? If he can force you to die over a nonviable protofetus, that means he has power over you, which is the entire point. He doesn't care about you, save that he doesn't want you to be able to keep him from killing you over a nonviable protofetus. In the pursuit of the 'right' people telling the 'wrong' people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the 'wrong' people from telling the 'right' people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder... anything goes.

Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).

[-] rabbit_wren@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Women in the U.S. now have fewer rights to their bodies than do corpses. So, unfortunately no, we aren't worth the same as another human life or even a human death for that matter.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

In this specific case, I agree, it's a hard moral question with the twin involved which makes it harder.

I'm not speaking on this specific case, and most pro-lifers are open to exceptions, this being a prime example of where I think there should be. but the more broad statement that simply because I'm pro-life, means that I want to enslave woman, is absurdly wrong and simply perverting and strawmanning a fairly reasonable argument that a human life in the womb has inherent human life value.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don't understand the word individual pick up a dictionary.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

to have individual rights one must first be an individual.

Exactly. And some people truly believe it's an individual.

See you're almost there, you just lack the ability to empathize that one may think differently than you.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

You missed the bit about reading the dictionary. Something that has never been detached is not individual. Your problem is a literacy one.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I did and came across this definition: 'of or for a particular person.'

My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

That's called cherry picking. It's intellectually disingenuous, not that you'd understand that concept given your displayed levels of reading comprehension, but ignoring the core definitions of the word to play gotcha games with a secondary definition of 'person' which you are also intentionally misrepresenting the definition of doesn't make you right, it just reinforces that your intentionally malicious attempts to circumvent agreed upon language conventions and collective are necessary for you to even pretend like you have a leg to stand on in the conversation.

You literally cannot hold or present your position without first bastardising any attempt to communicate in good faith by arbitrarily redefining words.

In other words, you've proven yourself either disingenuous or stupid, which one comes down to your actual cognizance of your actions.

[-] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

You can "truly believe" that the sky is falling too. Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.

So you think your argument is 100% factually correct, despite it clearly being an opinion.

I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don't subscribe to that opinion. If you refuse to see any other argument on a divided issue, I suggest you learn about the other sides argument, and it either strengthens your position or gives you more nuance on the division. Wanna know why politics is so divided? It's because people 100% think they're right and they won't listen to the other argument to understand it. You share that quality with the MAGA folks, I hope you learn to not have that awful quality.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Wanna know why politics is so divided? It's because people 100% think they're right and they won't listen to the other argument to understand it.

If self-awareness was a disease you'd be the healthiest person alive.

load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
891 points (100.0% liked)

News

31269 readers
2484 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