590
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 10 Feb 2024
590 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1735 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Roe versus Wade is not literally killing women. Hyperbole of the century.
Yeah, and what do you call a high risk pregnancy that would normally have ended in abortion? Now women are forced to carry the pregnancy (viable or otherwise) to term putting their health and lives at risk.
Educate yourself on what’s going on before spouting nonsense.
But that's LACK of Roe v Wade! Checkmate or something, lib!
There should be exceptions for when the mother's health is at risk.
Except there isn't, therefore, the repeal of Roe v Wade is, literally, killing women.
There are in many states.
And yet, doctors are still concerned because shit is too vague, so they just... don't do them for any reason.
That's on the doctors and I think it's political in nature rather than as you described. I'm skeptical that this actually happens frequently.
That's fine, but the facts don't really care about your feelings.
It's almost like this was a healthcare decision. That should have been left between doctors and their patients. Not a bunch of balding fascists.
I'm sorry but that's in no way an objective source. On this particular social issue, that's like citing Fox News. I'll take some local news website or something that lists that sources or best of all the scientific study on the reluctance of doctors to perform abortions.
But I will not accept an NPR editorial on abortion as evidence.
Also that slogan is not as pithy as you think. Lol. Kind of makes you sound like a wine mom.
Oh wow, what's this? Is the NPR article linking sources, and to a local news website no less? Wild. But if you won't accept an NPR article, would you accept an interview on PBS?
Or a guardian article (linking a study by the New England Journal of Medicine)?
Or a CNN article citing a study published in the American Journal of Gynecology?
Or a Texas Tribune article?
Or a Fox News article?
Or a second Fox News article?
Does it matter what the source is? Do you even care?
Jesus Christ that was incredibly well cited. That's a top tier comment if I've ever seen one, amazing work.
If you just search "doctor roe v wade abortion", most of these articles are the results on the first page. Econgrad is being disingenuous about what sources they're willing to accept, so I just googled it for them in way fewer words than it took to lie about why they wouldn't take the NPR article.
Dude, that is NPR. Grow the fuck up. You're worried about NPR but really no one in your life should trust you because you have very poor judgement.
Why won’t you accept an NPR article?
Follow-up: what is your understanding of the definition of the word “editorial”?
So you want to legislate but don't want any responsibility for your legislation? Why would anybody give a shit about what you think?
It is happening constantly. These laws don't define what they mean when they say the mother's life is at risk, so doctors wait until women are on death's doorstep because otherwise they can be charged with a crime.
Pro-lifers don't actually think about the consequences of their vague ass laws. Women ARE dying because of the repeal of RvW and it isn't their fault, or the doctors', it's the climate of fear that was intentionally created by the extremists who support this bullshit.
Sure you waved your fingers so it magically happened so. Fuck reality right?
One in 3,000 women die from pregnancy or birth complications in the US each year.
Making women remain pregnant inevitably causes deaths.
There should be exceptions for genuine medical life-threatening reasons for abortion. But that represents less than 1% of all abortions.
They're separate arguments from your original claim that RvW is not life threatening.
And while risk of death is fortunately relatively low in the US, it's only one of the many negative consequences of the repeal.
Many women survive the birth only to be inflicted with any one of a range of physical medical issues, including life long disability and chronic pain.
There's also deep mental issues that arise.
Likewise, there are the potential negative health concerns for the baby to consider.
On top of that, there's all the many socio-economic problems.
I'm not saying there are easy answers to all this, but I'm not minimizing the issues either.
Econgrad's goalpost shifting is shameless.
Because it's not. It's extremist state governments that are doing that not the repeal of Roe versus Wade. I attacked the statement because it is a ridiculous statement. The repeal of Roe vs Wade is not killing women.
It's not like roe versus Wade automatically equals total abortion bans.
Most pro-life people accept and support exceptions like rape, incest or when the mother's health is at risk. It's only a small minority of pro-life people that don't believe there should ever be any exceptions. You're literally arguing against a straw man.
It doesn't matter what the majority wants in regards to your claim of no deaths. That's just unfullfilled hopes and wishes.
We're talking about the reality right now. And the reality is that the repeal has directly given the "extremists" the power to cause more maternal deaths, as you just acknowledged.
Again, you're talking about different issues.
Pro-life itself is anti-freedom. I think pro-lifers should be denied representation in government. If you have a problem with that then you're just hypocritical. Its the same as not allowing women to have determination over their own bodies.
I actually think you shouldn't be allowed to vote; Just like you think women can't make determinations about their own bodies and somehow you have more care and wisdom than licensed doctors.
If you have a problem with that you're a hypocrite.
A friend of mine was hospitalized due to a pregnancy complication. Fortunately we live in a state where abortion is still legal so they were able to perform an emergency abortion and save her life. She was still hospitalized for a week. If we lived in one of several states where it's not legal she would have died, no question. The doctor literally told her so. So no, it's not hyperbole, it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as abortions are illegal.
There should always be exceptions for legitimate health issues or when rape or incest result in pregnancy. But that represents 15% or so of all abortions. Most people who are pro-life agree that there should be exceptions for these things. There's only a very small amount of people that are hardcore fanatics who reject abortion for any reason whatsoever, they're just very very loud.
My problem with pro-lifers is you're all just content to pretend to be the mouth-piece for babies because somehow you think you know better than the person who is carrying said baby.
Conservatives' advocacy for preserving life rings hollow when it's clear they will actively oppose policies beyond birth, like free lunch programs for kids in schools, debt forgiveness for students, and proper sex education with use of contraceptives.
It's clear the real goal is to birth future laborers and christian missionaries. Your entire position on pro-life is actually a desperate attempt to preserve a dying religion. You're devoid of the kindness and love taught by your own God.
I have no respect for people who pretend to care about preserving life.
First respect women, then you can respect their fetus: https://midwest.social/post/8438167
It doesn't matter if there should be exceptions because the reality is that in many states today there are no exceptions. Furthermore questions about who decides what constitutes a "legitimate health issue" or not make many doctors in states where there are exceptions hesitant to perform abortions even in cases where they believe it's in the patients best interest out of fear that it would be deemed not medically necessary after the fact. Even in cases where doctors know a pregnancy is non-viable they delay aborting it until the mother is in critical condition just so that there's no question that it was an emergency.
Show me these exceptions.
Did we make them Ohio for that ten year old? Are we making them in Texas? Cox was a privileged white lady with means to try the system and ability to seek treatment elsewhere. Do you think people with less will be better advocates for themselves? Apply some goddamn logic.
You seem to love this idea about the way the world should work to the extent you ignore how it actually runs. Show me the test that indicates a pregnancy is a product of rape. Or will the woman have to wait until the sentencing? (You do understand many many rapes are never reported?) Birth control fails! A big swath of abortions are from married women with kids who just want to best provide for the families they have. So to 'save' a fetus we condemn other kids? How does that make any sense to you? Arguments to deny reproductive autonomy are completely illogical.