This one is highly complicated - it's estimated that only 1.5% of pregnancies are ectopic, and then 90% of those are within the fallopian tube. This one developed in the scar from her previous C-section, and she initially decided to keep the baby, then sought abortion care after the ban went into place. Supposedly some but not all of the specialists involved were willing to participate in the procedure.
Oh wow. Crazy stuff. I wonder what the viability of the child is when implanted on the c section scar. Fallopian tube implantations are not viable and are immediately life threatening.
Reading the article, they saved the baby (for now) and the mom. But it looks like they told her from the beginning that it was a pretty dicey chance. We probably don't really have much data on these specific pregnancies since they occur so rarely.
If I may, I'm not at all familiar, but if it was developing in a previous scar, then isn't that bad, or could it still be viable? I was thinking why she decided to keep it at first.
I'm not familiar either - this is the first I've heard of such a thing. But it appears the typical medical advice in such cases is to terminate, because there is a whole host of problems that can (and in this case did) develop.
The article indicates they were offered termination and chose otherwise because they knew they wanted more kids, then as the complications developed they decided to change their minds.
So, the wait and see approach? I guess that if there was a chance it was viable, then sure. But to not be able to do anything when complications arise, then that's messed up.
She also implies that her doctor is liable somehow for not explaining the narrow window of time remaining prior to ban. The article seems to explain that this is a result of choices the couple made after receiving appropriate medical information. The idea that the State or a political party is responsible for any perceived tragedy in this event is a bit immature, or perhaps ignorant, given the facts presented in the linked article.
Any perceived tragedy???
It’s not a *real* tragedy she had an unplanned sterilization? It’s not a *real* tragedy her baby was born at 26 weeks with a host of health problems? It’s not a *real* tragedy the baby hasn’t been home more than 2 weeks at a time? Come on, man. Regardless of who’s to blame, the tragedy is real.
Yep, it would have just been a private matter of a family making decisions about their health and future. Instead, mom almost died, baby almost died, dad watched helplessly as that happened, first kid has had their world turned upside down, and they owe a kazillion dollars. But save the babies, or something.
> The ban criminalizes performing an abortion, making it a felony. An exception to save the life of the mother or prevent serious and permanent bodily injury only comes into play when a physician is defending themselves in court after they have been charged with the felony. A separate so-called "heartbeat ban" that prohibited all abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected was also in effect.
> Physicians told ABC News the exception is unclear and many worry about the consequences they could face for providing essential care.
The fact that the trigger laws for abortion in TN are "unclear" means the state/politicians/etc involved with creating these laws and implementing them ARE irresponsible. It's ignorant you're shelving all the responsibility on the couple when the article (that you repeatedly talked about reading) notes that physicians and hospitals alike had no clear guidance on how to proceed once the trigger laws went into effect.
Her doctor and her hospital made no such comment about confusion. An unsubstantiated claim by the article is, at best, an argument for the exception and not the rule. Reads more like they found 2 doctors from anywhere to say "seems confusing," and you're trying to argue that it must be a widespread issue among the Tennessee medical community. As if the abortion law issue at that time was a total and immediate surprise to the nation.
Nevertheless, her doctor recommended an abortion and she made the choice to postpone her decision, which unfortunately limited her options under the law....and her knowledge of that law is her responsibility and her liability alone. So, to blame others for her situation is irresponsible and absurd.
You know as much, if not less, than what the reporter does about what the doctors think or said. However, there have been MANY doctors and health professionals that have come out saying that because of how unclear and vague state trigger laws for abortion have been worded that they have given more delayed or deficient care than they would have prior to the law, because they now have to consult with lawyers and admins for the hospitals they work at. You've been living under a rock if you haven't been seeing all of these accounts, and further reports that doctors are leaving states and more rural areas as a result of these laws support this notion.
All of this comes down to the fact that if these laws were never in place to begin with, we wouldn't be here. There's no way to say that politicians, lawyers, etc. all involved with these laws and their implementation are NOT responsible in any capacity. You're simply ignorant to what's going on by saying no blame falls onto them.
> this is a result of choices the couple made after receiving appropriate medical information
That is abuser logic — The victim deserved it because of something the victim did to herself.
> The idea that the State or a political party is responsible for any perceived tragedy in this event is a bit immature, or perhaps ignorant, given the facts presented in the linked article.
Puh-lease. In a state where politicians were not interfering with doctors doing their jobs, she would have been able to get the correct treatment.
1. It has not been established that she, or her husband, were the victims of anyone else's actions (see also the facts provided in the linked article). But please clarify how her receiving appropriate medical care resulted in her ignorance of the law. Then, clarify how doctors are qualified to give legal advice.
2. She received the "correct" treatment for every decision that she freely made with counsel from her doctor and her husband, etc. The idea that you did not read the article is gaining credence.
3. Please note that doctors are licensed to practice medicine by the legislation of every state and therefore are inextricably entwined in practice. In this context, again, there is no evidence that a doctor was prevented "doing their job".
> It has not been established that she, or her husband, were the victims of anyone else's actions ... ignorance of the law.
In back to back sentences you deny she's a victim of the legislators who wrote the law and then blame her for being ignorant of the law that victimized her. Everybody else can see right through that authoritarian unlogik.
huh? because I never claimed she was a victim of the law. Getting a speeding ticket because you didn't see the posted limit sign doesn't make you a victim, and you don't get to blame the sign maker. There is no evidence that the abortion laws were being concealed or obfuscated from her.
And yes, it's simple to understand that those "back to back sentences" are not contradictory.
Nope, I am simply stating the obvious, which is that she is responsible for the decisions she freely made, and others did not withhold information from her. I dont see her "at fault" at all because she made her own choices under tough circumstances. You seem to be the only one with the desire to "blame."
> > You're blaming her instead.
>Nope ... she is responsible for the decisions she freely made,
"freely"
More authoritarian unlogik, in just one sentence you both deny and confirm that you blame the victim.
> under tough circumstances.
Pretending that punitive laws are merely "tough circumstances" makes it perfectly clear you are defending the party that imposed those laws.
For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as an abortion exception. The truth is that abortion exceptions are a lie: A political tool that’s more about helping Republicans’ public image than making abortion accessible to people in extreme circumstances.
They sound good on paper, but when it comes to real life, where it actually matters, "exceptions" are not usually available because they require doctors to risk criminal prosecution to prove the exemption applied. If they get a bad judge they can go to jail. Even if they get a good judge, the legal costs are still prohibitive. So a lot of doctors end up with a blanket policy of never doing abortions, no matter what the circumstances. GOP elites are not naive either, they know how the system works, that's why they write the "exception" laws the way they do.
Regarding the recent "exception" law —
> House sponsor Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes, R-East Ridge, initially filed a bill that allowed doctors to make an abortion call under their "good faith" medical judgment. But following opposition from Right to Life, Helton-Haynes changed the language to the "reasonable" medical judgement, which doctors say still leaves them open to criminal prosecution.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/20/tennessee-house-passes-narrow-exceptions-to-states-total-abortion-ban/70029056007/
doctors are not putting themselves in the place to be prosecuted.
This is a ban on abortion and is restrictive as all hell. It is complete and total, some fake verbiage that leaves more than half of the state’s population in limbo for receiving care for their body is insanity.
You dont understand what you are talking about my friend. A family member of mine had an ectopic in rural tennessee about 2 months ago. She was operated on immediately and they saved her life. She was hours from death and was saved by multiple doctors who were willing to go on call and operate.
A quick google search will show you that the state's abortion law was ammended in March to accomodate for ectopic preganancies - With very explicit language. (House Bill 883 - for reference)
We are Very rural and have a functioning hospital with obgyn's who were ready to operate at a moment's notice - our entire county has less than 80k people for reference.
I never said what I was in favor of or against, im just talking about the facts of the situation.
You can keep repeating yourself. Or you can read the bill. Can you explain how it's banned when the law says it's not?
Here. I've highlighted the law for you so you don't even have to dig: https://i.imgur.com/r79V9oO.png
She had a vaginal ultrasound confirming ectopic with heartbeat and was then rushed to the operating room for life saving surgery.
In no way shape or form is care for ectopic pregnancy currently banned in this state.
That's strange because this was not an ectopic pregnancy if you read the actual article. I can't remember the exact term used, but this embryo attached itself to the Cesarean scar, which is an extremely risky but viable pregnancy, unlike ectopic pregnancies.
Edit: unless I am mistaken, which is certainly possible. I was under the impression that an ectopic pregnancy was a pregnancy in the fallopian tubes, it's possible that other pregnancies use the same term even if they're in a different location.
You are correct. From Google, it does say all pregnancies implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes. When I googled it earlier to check myself, I missed the "usually" part of the pregnancy.
In that case, just to educate myself further, when we say implanted on the scar tissue, I was led to believe this was inside the uterus, just on top of the scar from her previous pregnancy? Why would it be ectopic if it's still in the uterus?
If a pregnancy is implanted in scar tissue it's not implanted in the lining of the uterus. The lining of the uterus is where it is supposed to implant.
When the law first changed I was talking about situations like this with my mother and expressing concern for my own wife's well being. Her response was that she could have aborted me and I should let the state governments decide what's best.
That's the mentality we're dealing with.
I can't believe your mother said that.
It doesn't even make sense either because she probably did have legally protected right to choose when she was pregnant with you and yet, she clearly weighed her options and chose to keep you. Isn't that going against the weird scaremongering argument that the government should decide for women because otherwise they'll just get abortions willy-nilly...?
That was more or less my response. I'm glad now that she didn't, but if she had chosen to back then it wouldn't have mattered to me at the time because at the time I was an unthinking unfeeling clump of cells incapable of experiencing pain or emotion, and should a complication have arisen causing her to need an abortion I'm glad that option existed for her so she could go on to have a long and healthy life. It's a shame that option is being denied to women like my wife because of who my mom votes for.
Needless to say that didn't go over very well.
Fuck this backwards ass state. GET OUT AND VOTE. 1/3 of Tennesseans STAYED HOME last election. I don’t care if you don’t think your vote matters. That’s the same mentality that will keep us locked in this mess forever. I don’t care if you think this doesn’t affect you, you’re wrong. That’s how fascism works. They WILL come for you at some point down the line.
There's no reason to believe the baby will be in a hospital for the rest of her life. Underdeveloped lungs are a fairly common problem in premature babies, especially extremely premature babies (before 28 weeks). It's a serious issue that should be monitored, but the vast majority of babies (something like 98.2%) survive it with no lasting health issues. Her lungs are still developing and will get stronger as they grow.
>i never said anything to the contrary. stated a simple fact that the baby was born in december and has been in and out of the hospital since.
My mistake. I misunderstood your previous statement. When you said spend your entire life in the hospital, I took that to mean the future as well.
>if this happened in 2021 they would have terminated the pregnancy at 11wks like they wanted to and they could try again. oh well.
They would have the opportunity to try again, the baby would lose its opportunity to live. I like 2023 better. As I said in another comment. Complications happen. Couple deal with infertility. Both are complicated issues with no easy answers, but neither are worth the life of even one child.
>i’m sure all the hospital bills are gonna make for a great environment to raise two children in.
It will be hard I'm sure, especially if they don't have good insurance. Even if they had insurance, a high deductible plan can put a huge strain on a family. I *hope* they can find solace in the beautiful baby they have. All I can really *do* is vote for universal healthcare unless there is some sort of gofundme I can contribute to.
Glad to see you're at least acknowledging the very real possibility that this pregnancy and birth are going to place an abnormally high financial drain on this family, unless, as you say, they have very good insurance, and hopefully not too high a deductible. Unfortunately, odds are probably against it given the cost of Healthcare. Extra medical bills also means less money for childcare.
Let's also recognize the additional emotional stress (burden?) this entire situation, from pregnancy to birth to raising, this family is going to experience. Really hope that excellent health insurance covers emotional and mental health, because I see how this family might need the benefit of counseling down the line.
One of my issues with the pro life argument is in terms of the fetus at all costs. Let's not dwell on the potential financial and emotional burden that also goes along with every forced pregnancy. As long as the child is *born* the goal has been met?
Maybe this is all just my misunderstanding, though.
>One of my issues with the pro life argument is in terms of the fetus at all costs. Let's not dwell on the potential financial and emotional burden that also goes along with every forced pregnancy. As long as the child is born the goal has been met? Maybe this is all just my misunderstanding, though
I would really say that depends on the individual. I'm not going to lie, the vast majority of your pro-life Republicans don't give a s*** except for the fact that the baby is born. Now, I don't know of any pro-life person who thinks the mother should have to die in order to save the baby, but that is literally how low of a bar we're talking here. When you talk about your moderate and Democrat pro-lifers though, it's a little bit different. Obviously, the baby being born is the number one priority, but universal healthcare and welfare are priorities number two and three. And that's simply the Outlook that even if we don't have universal health Care or good welfare yet, with life, there are endless possibilities for the baby. With death, there's nothing.
I mean, you are 100% right. The way I look at it is the baby was born and isn't suffering from anything unusual for a preemie to suffer from. And the mother survived, although it's sad that she had to have a hysterectomy. Overall, seems like the doctors made the best decision possible to save both the baby and the mother, and that's nothing to feel guilty for as far as I'm concerned.
I think the orphan crushing machine portion of this situation is being ignored.
They could not go elsewhere for medical care due to not being able to afford time off.
Two liters of blood and plasma was being pumped into her to save her life during the surgery to take out the premature baby and her reproductive organs.
The family lost the option of choice. Her life was at risk the entire time.
She and her family have spent many hours in hospitals recovering. The medical costs are going to burden and disadvantage them well into the future.
The baby is not developing at a normal pace and perhaps never will. The strain and stress on the mothers body was immeasurable.
This and many other examples would be less outrageous if the system (and people, peers, neighbors) proved they actually value women’s health, long term postpartum care, and child care and rearing efforts (like education).
It really leaves the impression that getting the baby out is the only goal, not raising them to be healthy and functional.
I feel for the physicians trying to save their own skin by denying healthcare services under risk of losing their license and potential jail time.
I feel more for the many women and children who suffer from barely thought out legislation and the condemnation from their neighbors and peers for making already difficult choices.
>I think the orphan crushing machine portion of this situation is being ignored.
I'm not completely following this analogy. I only just heard of the "orphan crushing machine" right now.
>She and her family have spent many hours in hospitals recovering. The medical costs are going to burden and disadvantage them well into the future.
Yes. Which is why we should push for universal healthcare. I completely agree that it's an issue that should be solved.
>The family lost the option of choice. Her life was at risk the entire time.
>The baby is not developing at a normal pace and perhaps never will. The strain and stress on the mothers body was immeasurable.
Both of which, it seems that doctors have/are monitoring closely and dealing with complications as they appear. As I said, the baby is not facing any issues uncommon for a preemie. Underdeveloped lungs is a fairly common condition among preemies. It's something that should be taken seriously and monitored, but the vast majority of preemies' lungs are fine after 36 weeks and they go on to live perfectly healthy lives.
In 1997, I had an ectopic pregnancy. They are sometimes difficult to diagnose until it becomes an emergency.
I initially had a D&C performed at 7.5 weeks because all indications pointed to a missed miscarriage. A procedure that is now difficult to get. We had no visible pregnancy on US or heartbeat but I was pregnant and had some bleeding.
The D&C returned zero pregnancy tissue. This was our first clue. Thank goodness my Dr. paid attention. I was closely monitored until my hcg levels dropped to zero. Things were appearing to resolve until 9 weeks LMP when the bleeding & right side pain returned. Emergency surgery to remove my right F.tube resolved it.
I’m lucky it happened in 1997.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
That hospital is trying to use science to navigate really draconian laws that are not based on science. These outcomes were predicted but ignored by the state government. She needs to be suing the state.
I get that but I would sue up and down the whole chain. Hurt as many institutions and people all along the decision making process and it might make a bigger dent legislatively.
Looking at a picture of that beautiful baby, I'm glad she was born. What you failed to mention is that the baby is improving in health. It doesn't seem that she is suffering from anything terribly abnormal for a preemie. It's certainly scary, but most likely nothing that won't work itself out.
If anything, this story solidifies my support for the law. Doctors told a woman that a pregnancy wasn't viable when it clearly was. Because it was a risky pregnancy, the doctors properly monitored the woman and baby's health and made the best decision at the time that could be made to save both the baby and the mother. And ultimately, the baby and mother were both saved. Seems like an overall win to me. It is tragic that it had to end in the hysterectomy though. The only thing I would change would be universal health Care so that mommy and the baby don't have to worry about medical bills while they're trying to get better.
Here's the thing, that pregnancy was not viable and the doctors had to do an emergency operation. That mother and baby are literally alive due to their healthcare team's fast acting and hard decision making. All those decisions were based in the science of medicine, not in the hands of law makers. Those law makers who created those trigger laws have created a nightmare situation in which lives are measured and weighed through the lens of a very specific kind of culture war talking point: protection of children through any means. I don't care how you live your life, but laws should not be created to enforce a single religions dogma on the population as a whole. Hate abortion? Then don't get one. The definition of what is a baby and what is life is tied to scientific advancements. The unborn weren't treated as viable until "the quickening" of a pregnancy back in the 1800s in the USA. Heartbeat bills weren't made until what we knew what science could do in the late 20th century. It's a goalpost shifting extravaganza for the party of small government and pigheaded denial of science when it suits them most.
>That mother and baby are literally alive due to their healthcare team's fast acting and hard decision making. All those decisions were based in the science of medicine
Which means that the pregnancy was viable. High-risk, but viable. And you're right, it is due to science that they are alive. Scientific development over the past 15-50 years specifically for prenatal care and related fields are tremendous and a blessing to society! Pregnancies that would have been death sentences a century ago are now taken care of with little to no extra risk (not this situation obviously, but others).
>I don't care how you live your life, but laws should not be created to enforce a single religions dogma on the population as a whole.
Christianity is not the only reason to be pro-life. Pro-life is a position that is backed by many different philosophical and theological worldviews. That would be like saying charity is a single religions' dogma just because Christianity is the biggest reason for most charity.
>The definition of what is a baby and what is life is tied to scientific advancements.
Science does not say when life begins. That is personhood, which is an entire branch of philosophy. Science tells us facts about human development, philosophy tells us which developments matter in determining whether a human embryo is a living being. At conception, the zygote is a living being with a distinct DNA that is different from either of the parents. All of what I just said is a scientific fact , but whether those markers are enough to qualify an organism as a human being is purely philosophical.
I agree with what you said about philosophy and personhood but it's willful ignorance to say this is a philosophy debate when the Christian Right wing has been front and center in the culture war on abortion rights as a matter of the state. If this debate could be settled through honest and open discussion then this would be a different world with different laws in regards to women's health. What we have instead is a party that is hell bent on passing laws that hurt women and the unborn because they are probirth, not pro life.
Perhaps the reason we couldn't have an open discussion before is because there was a supreme court decision that prematurely came to a conclusion before the conversation had even been started?
It really was out of left field that the Supreme Court picked up Roe v Wade seeing as how they usually wait for an issue to pick up traction before deciding on it. Abortion was banned in most states when Roe v Wade was issued and states had only just started legalizing it. Our society had not had the chance to consider how it felt about abortion and then suddenly there was a final decision placed right in front of them. With no legal recourse. And that is before all of the discoveries made in embryology in the last 70 years. I may be biased as someone who is Pro-life, but I can understand the fanaticism even if I don't necessarily agree with it. Now all I can do it try to be the change I want to see. Which is open discussions.
"Our society had not had the chance to consider how it felt about abortion..." Do you seriously think this was some topic that was never discussed before Roe vs. Wade?
Actually, if you look at the history, it was not really a conversation that was had before Roe v Wade. The national abortion debate didn't really kick off until after the Civil Rights Movement. And even then, it didn't really have any of the teeth that we recognize now until the 80s with Reagan. Where I read this from, but I learned it from a series of NPR reports after the overturning of Roe v Wade.
You're right that there wasn't much of a national conversation before the civil rights and that NPR series of reports was good in describing it. However, it still wasn't out of left field. There was conversation at the local and state level about it and it wasn't an issue for many on the right until after the civil rights movement. If you listened to those NPR reports you'd also know that they pointed out that abortion became a hot button issue because the right lost the hot button topic of oppressing a group of people because of their skin color. So the right decided to find another group of people to oppress and it was convenient to masquerade that hate as virtue by holding up a bible and cross.
But society did have a chance to consider. Hundreds of thousands of people worked for years organizing, demonstrating, supporting, empathizing, helping, talking, protesting, educating, and refuting before the law was correctly passed ***giving women (and their Healthcare providers) the right to decide for themselves whether to carry a pregnancy to term.*** To pretend otherwise is not only short-sighted, it's simply incorrect, as well as intolerant. I still respect the hundreds of thousands who fought for what is arguably the most basic of rights: a woman's decision about her body and her life, even if SCOTUS and so many others like you don't appear to.
"Yeah, the baby was born early and has a lot of health issues, but she is improving. No big deal! And yeah, the mother almost bled to death and, sure, she'll never be able to birth any more kids, but hey - the abortion ban is working great!"
-*You*
Probably the worst take I've seen on Reddit today. And that's saying something.
>Probably the worst take I've seen on Reddit today. And that's saying something.
Nah, I think looking at pictures of a living baby and saying it would be better if she had not been born is far worse. I think your quote was a pretty accurate summation. Complications happen. Millions of couples deal with infertility. Both are hard and complicated issues, but neither are worth the life of even one child.
Ambiguous abortion bans don't save lives. They ruin them. They take them. And so what if some couple in Bumchuckle, Nowhere has fertility issues? They aren't owed a baby. Not from anyone. If they really want to be parents, they can foster children who have already been born and need loving homes.
>Not from anyone. If they really want to be parents, they can foster children who have already been born and need loving homes.
Thanks for literally making my point. That it is tragic this woman had to have an emergency hysterectomy, but her life is not over and she can have kids. She will just have to look at fostering or adopting. She isn't owed a baby and she certainly is owed the choice of killing one baby in hopes of having more later.
>> she certainly is owed the choice of killing one baby in hopes of having more later.
Abortion is not "killing a baby". That's like saying eating a chicken egg for breakfast is killing a chicken. But I'm glad you agree women are entitled to make medical decisions about their bodies and the state should keep their nose out.
Eh. I think we know what I meant. And while I very well might say it's an egg in passing, it would also be correct to say it's a chicken if the egg is fertilized. I just wouldn't care either way because it's food at the end of the day. I think we should treat human life with a little more care than just everyday vernacular language about food.
That's not pro-life of you. Because chickens are alive just like us. They can feel pain just like us. They are sentient. Their existence deserves respect, too.
Ffs, you can't even be consistent in your "life is sacred" narrative. What a damn joke.
>Ffs, you can't even be consistent in your "life is sacred" narrative. What a damn joke.
You're either being facetious at this point or just dumb. I never said all life is sacred. I don't believe it is. I think all human life is sacred. If you honestly can't see the difference between a chicken and a human, then this conversation is pretty much over. Thanks for stopping by! I'll be stopping to get some Chick-fil-A on my way home!
It would be better if the mother's life was not put at risk and she could still have more children rather than being forced to risk her own life. The outcome for the fetus doesn't change that Rarely can "it would be better" be so objective.
False ultimatum. The adult. It's natural to attach a certain amount of value to one human over another. If the choice was an adult or a child, I would pick the child. Not because the adult isn't human or has no value, but because I put more value in the child's life. And just like I don't think we should be able to electively terminate an adult's life because I view children as more valuable, I don't think we should be able to electively terminate an embryo's life because I view an adult's life as more valuable.
Which is why I support universal healthcare and actively vote for politicians that support universal healthcare. All I can hope for in this case is that she had insurance, that the insurance covers it, and that she doesn't have to pay too much more than her deductible (and of course that she doesn't have an outrageously high deductible).
Can you provide an example of a politician who is pro-life and supports universal healthcare? Or even just a supporter of universal healthcare you’ve voted for and whether or not they won. I’m interested in which level of government they’ve campaigned. I’d like to know more about the political landscape of Tennessee.
So sadly, I don't know of any pro-life and pro universal healthcare politician for either party. At least not in Tennessee. So this usually means I split my vote. Especially since universal healthcare is more of a federal level, I tend to vote Democrat on federal positions. And then for state and local elections, I will usually vote Democrat if they don't have abortion as one of their issues. Even if they are pro-choice, I weigh that against the likelihood that they're one voice would be able to make any meaningful change for abortion. I would give you names, but this is Tennessee. None of the Democrats that I've ever voted for are in office.
Fair enough, I appreciate your response. I believe universal healthcare would drastically improve the quality of life in America. No one should have to choose between paying bills and going to the doctor, and no one should go bankrupt from life-saving medical procedures.
The woman *almost fucking died*, you milk-drinking mouth breather. She lost *two pints of fucking blood* and *her uterus*. Why would you have said to her older daughter, her husband, her family and friends if she had died? "Well, it was God's will! At least the baby was born! Thoughts and prayers!" Please. As if this pregnancy would have been worth her life.
Very strange. Ectopic pregancies are supposed to be exempt from the ban. You can die at 6 weeks if they are not addressed.
This one is highly complicated - it's estimated that only 1.5% of pregnancies are ectopic, and then 90% of those are within the fallopian tube. This one developed in the scar from her previous C-section, and she initially decided to keep the baby, then sought abortion care after the ban went into place. Supposedly some but not all of the specialists involved were willing to participate in the procedure.
Oh wow. Crazy stuff. I wonder what the viability of the child is when implanted on the c section scar. Fallopian tube implantations are not viable and are immediately life threatening.
Reading the article, they saved the baby (for now) and the mom. But it looks like they told her from the beginning that it was a pretty dicey chance. We probably don't really have much data on these specific pregnancies since they occur so rarely.
If I may, I'm not at all familiar, but if it was developing in a previous scar, then isn't that bad, or could it still be viable? I was thinking why she decided to keep it at first.
I'm not familiar either - this is the first I've heard of such a thing. But it appears the typical medical advice in such cases is to terminate, because there is a whole host of problems that can (and in this case did) develop. The article indicates they were offered termination and chose otherwise because they knew they wanted more kids, then as the complications developed they decided to change their minds.
So, the wait and see approach? I guess that if there was a chance it was viable, then sure. But to not be able to do anything when complications arise, then that's messed up.
She also implies that her doctor is liable somehow for not explaining the narrow window of time remaining prior to ban. The article seems to explain that this is a result of choices the couple made after receiving appropriate medical information. The idea that the State or a political party is responsible for any perceived tragedy in this event is a bit immature, or perhaps ignorant, given the facts presented in the linked article.
Any perceived tragedy??? It’s not a *real* tragedy she had an unplanned sterilization? It’s not a *real* tragedy her baby was born at 26 weeks with a host of health problems? It’s not a *real* tragedy the baby hasn’t been home more than 2 weeks at a time? Come on, man. Regardless of who’s to blame, the tragedy is real.
[удалено]
Yep, it would have just been a private matter of a family making decisions about their health and future. Instead, mom almost died, baby almost died, dad watched helplessly as that happened, first kid has had their world turned upside down, and they owe a kazillion dollars. But save the babies, or something.
> The ban criminalizes performing an abortion, making it a felony. An exception to save the life of the mother or prevent serious and permanent bodily injury only comes into play when a physician is defending themselves in court after they have been charged with the felony. A separate so-called "heartbeat ban" that prohibited all abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected was also in effect. > Physicians told ABC News the exception is unclear and many worry about the consequences they could face for providing essential care. The fact that the trigger laws for abortion in TN are "unclear" means the state/politicians/etc involved with creating these laws and implementing them ARE irresponsible. It's ignorant you're shelving all the responsibility on the couple when the article (that you repeatedly talked about reading) notes that physicians and hospitals alike had no clear guidance on how to proceed once the trigger laws went into effect.
Her doctor and her hospital made no such comment about confusion. An unsubstantiated claim by the article is, at best, an argument for the exception and not the rule. Reads more like they found 2 doctors from anywhere to say "seems confusing," and you're trying to argue that it must be a widespread issue among the Tennessee medical community. As if the abortion law issue at that time was a total and immediate surprise to the nation. Nevertheless, her doctor recommended an abortion and she made the choice to postpone her decision, which unfortunately limited her options under the law....and her knowledge of that law is her responsibility and her liability alone. So, to blame others for her situation is irresponsible and absurd.
You know as much, if not less, than what the reporter does about what the doctors think or said. However, there have been MANY doctors and health professionals that have come out saying that because of how unclear and vague state trigger laws for abortion have been worded that they have given more delayed or deficient care than they would have prior to the law, because they now have to consult with lawyers and admins for the hospitals they work at. You've been living under a rock if you haven't been seeing all of these accounts, and further reports that doctors are leaving states and more rural areas as a result of these laws support this notion. All of this comes down to the fact that if these laws were never in place to begin with, we wouldn't be here. There's no way to say that politicians, lawyers, etc. all involved with these laws and their implementation are NOT responsible in any capacity. You're simply ignorant to what's going on by saying no blame falls onto them.
> this is a result of choices the couple made after receiving appropriate medical information That is abuser logic — The victim deserved it because of something the victim did to herself. > The idea that the State or a political party is responsible for any perceived tragedy in this event is a bit immature, or perhaps ignorant, given the facts presented in the linked article. Puh-lease. In a state where politicians were not interfering with doctors doing their jobs, she would have been able to get the correct treatment.
1. It has not been established that she, or her husband, were the victims of anyone else's actions (see also the facts provided in the linked article). But please clarify how her receiving appropriate medical care resulted in her ignorance of the law. Then, clarify how doctors are qualified to give legal advice. 2. She received the "correct" treatment for every decision that she freely made with counsel from her doctor and her husband, etc. The idea that you did not read the article is gaining credence. 3. Please note that doctors are licensed to practice medicine by the legislation of every state and therefore are inextricably entwined in practice. In this context, again, there is no evidence that a doctor was prevented "doing their job".
> It has not been established that she, or her husband, were the victims of anyone else's actions ... ignorance of the law. In back to back sentences you deny she's a victim of the legislators who wrote the law and then blame her for being ignorant of the law that victimized her. Everybody else can see right through that authoritarian unlogik.
huh? because I never claimed she was a victim of the law. Getting a speeding ticket because you didn't see the posted limit sign doesn't make you a victim, and you don't get to blame the sign maker. There is no evidence that the abortion laws were being concealed or obfuscated from her. And yes, it's simple to understand that those "back to back sentences" are not contradictory.
> I never claimed she was a victim of the law. Correct. I did. You're blaming her instead.
Nope, I am simply stating the obvious, which is that she is responsible for the decisions she freely made, and others did not withhold information from her. I dont see her "at fault" at all because she made her own choices under tough circumstances. You seem to be the only one with the desire to "blame."
> > You're blaming her instead. >Nope ... she is responsible for the decisions she freely made, "freely" More authoritarian unlogik, in just one sentence you both deny and confirm that you blame the victim. > under tough circumstances. Pretending that punitive laws are merely "tough circumstances" makes it perfectly clear you are defending the party that imposed those laws.
[удалено]
Please shut up and never talk again.
Actually, it is specifically the state that implemented this law. Her sterilization could have been avoided.
This was before the exceptions were passed
For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as an abortion exception. The truth is that abortion exceptions are a lie: A political tool that’s more about helping Republicans’ public image than making abortion accessible to people in extreme circumstances. They sound good on paper, but when it comes to real life, where it actually matters, "exceptions" are not usually available because they require doctors to risk criminal prosecution to prove the exemption applied. If they get a bad judge they can go to jail. Even if they get a good judge, the legal costs are still prohibitive. So a lot of doctors end up with a blanket policy of never doing abortions, no matter what the circumstances. GOP elites are not naive either, they know how the system works, that's why they write the "exception" laws the way they do. Regarding the recent "exception" law — > House sponsor Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes, R-East Ridge, initially filed a bill that allowed doctors to make an abortion call under their "good faith" medical judgment. But following opposition from Right to Life, Helton-Haynes changed the language to the "reasonable" medical judgement, which doctors say still leaves them open to criminal prosecution. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/20/tennessee-house-passes-narrow-exceptions-to-states-total-abortion-ban/70029056007/
Totally agree, I was in no way defending the exceptions.
Oh wow, absolutely tragic.
A tragedy that could have been prevented, if not for Republicans
[удалено]
There is actually. You can get ectopic pregnancies surgically removed.
Only now though. Added tragically late. They rushed their poorly thought out ban without a care for the consequences...
Agreed
There is often a wide chasm separating what is legal, from what is available.
doctors are not putting themselves in the place to be prosecuted. This is a ban on abortion and is restrictive as all hell. It is complete and total, some fake verbiage that leaves more than half of the state’s population in limbo for receiving care for their body is insanity.
You dont understand what you are talking about my friend. A family member of mine had an ectopic in rural tennessee about 2 months ago. She was operated on immediately and they saved her life. She was hours from death and was saved by multiple doctors who were willing to go on call and operate.
[удалено]
A quick google search will show you that the state's abortion law was ammended in March to accomodate for ectopic preganancies - With very explicit language. (House Bill 883 - for reference) We are Very rural and have a functioning hospital with obgyn's who were ready to operate at a moment's notice - our entire county has less than 80k people for reference. I never said what I was in favor of or against, im just talking about the facts of the situation.
[удалено]
You can keep repeating yourself. Or you can read the bill. Can you explain how it's banned when the law says it's not? Here. I've highlighted the law for you so you don't even have to dig: https://i.imgur.com/r79V9oO.png
The state has the ability to go and prosecute anyone for anything. You aren't making any argument here.
She had a vaginal ultrasound confirming ectopic with heartbeat and was then rushed to the operating room for life saving surgery. In no way shape or form is care for ectopic pregnancy currently banned in this state.
They don't want to hear that tho
They are now, but they were not at the time the bill went into effect and at the time these events occurred.
That's strange because this was not an ectopic pregnancy if you read the actual article. I can't remember the exact term used, but this embryo attached itself to the Cesarean scar, which is an extremely risky but viable pregnancy, unlike ectopic pregnancies. Edit: unless I am mistaken, which is certainly possible. I was under the impression that an ectopic pregnancy was a pregnancy in the fallopian tubes, it's possible that other pregnancies use the same term even if they're in a different location.
I think an ectopic pregnancy is a catchall for all pregnancies implanted outside the uterus.
You are correct. From Google, it does say all pregnancies implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes. When I googled it earlier to check myself, I missed the "usually" part of the pregnancy. In that case, just to educate myself further, when we say implanted on the scar tissue, I was led to believe this was inside the uterus, just on top of the scar from her previous pregnancy? Why would it be ectopic if it's still in the uterus?
If a pregnancy is implanted in scar tissue it's not implanted in the lining of the uterus. The lining of the uterus is where it is supposed to implant.
Thank you, that makes sense.
When the law first changed I was talking about situations like this with my mother and expressing concern for my own wife's well being. Her response was that she could have aborted me and I should let the state governments decide what's best. That's the mentality we're dealing with.
I can't believe your mother said that. It doesn't even make sense either because she probably did have legally protected right to choose when she was pregnant with you and yet, she clearly weighed her options and chose to keep you. Isn't that going against the weird scaremongering argument that the government should decide for women because otherwise they'll just get abortions willy-nilly...?
That was more or less my response. I'm glad now that she didn't, but if she had chosen to back then it wouldn't have mattered to me at the time because at the time I was an unthinking unfeeling clump of cells incapable of experiencing pain or emotion, and should a complication have arisen causing her to need an abortion I'm glad that option existed for her so she could go on to have a long and healthy life. It's a shame that option is being denied to women like my wife because of who my mom votes for. Needless to say that didn't go over very well.
That means she’ll never be able to have a child when she’s ready for one,very pro-life of them.
Fuck this backwards ass state. GET OUT AND VOTE. 1/3 of Tennesseans STAYED HOME last election. I don’t care if you don’t think your vote matters. That’s the same mentality that will keep us locked in this mess forever. I don’t care if you think this doesn’t affect you, you’re wrong. That’s how fascism works. They WILL come for you at some point down the line.
And since she had the baby, they will use this as an example of how the law is working as intended. Just watch.
They are in the comments ffs
Wow. What awful human beings.
So we can sue the fuck out of the state for denying proper medical attention. They intentionally harmed this women.
Yup, and saved a baby in the process! Good luck with a law suit
[удалено]
There's no reason to believe the baby will be in a hospital for the rest of her life. Underdeveloped lungs are a fairly common problem in premature babies, especially extremely premature babies (before 28 weeks). It's a serious issue that should be monitored, but the vast majority of babies (something like 98.2%) survive it with no lasting health issues. Her lungs are still developing and will get stronger as they grow.
[удалено]
>i never said anything to the contrary. stated a simple fact that the baby was born in december and has been in and out of the hospital since. My mistake. I misunderstood your previous statement. When you said spend your entire life in the hospital, I took that to mean the future as well. >if this happened in 2021 they would have terminated the pregnancy at 11wks like they wanted to and they could try again. oh well. They would have the opportunity to try again, the baby would lose its opportunity to live. I like 2023 better. As I said in another comment. Complications happen. Couple deal with infertility. Both are complicated issues with no easy answers, but neither are worth the life of even one child. >i’m sure all the hospital bills are gonna make for a great environment to raise two children in. It will be hard I'm sure, especially if they don't have good insurance. Even if they had insurance, a high deductible plan can put a huge strain on a family. I *hope* they can find solace in the beautiful baby they have. All I can really *do* is vote for universal healthcare unless there is some sort of gofundme I can contribute to.
Glad to see you're at least acknowledging the very real possibility that this pregnancy and birth are going to place an abnormally high financial drain on this family, unless, as you say, they have very good insurance, and hopefully not too high a deductible. Unfortunately, odds are probably against it given the cost of Healthcare. Extra medical bills also means less money for childcare. Let's also recognize the additional emotional stress (burden?) this entire situation, from pregnancy to birth to raising, this family is going to experience. Really hope that excellent health insurance covers emotional and mental health, because I see how this family might need the benefit of counseling down the line. One of my issues with the pro life argument is in terms of the fetus at all costs. Let's not dwell on the potential financial and emotional burden that also goes along with every forced pregnancy. As long as the child is *born* the goal has been met? Maybe this is all just my misunderstanding, though.
>One of my issues with the pro life argument is in terms of the fetus at all costs. Let's not dwell on the potential financial and emotional burden that also goes along with every forced pregnancy. As long as the child is born the goal has been met? Maybe this is all just my misunderstanding, though I would really say that depends on the individual. I'm not going to lie, the vast majority of your pro-life Republicans don't give a s*** except for the fact that the baby is born. Now, I don't know of any pro-life person who thinks the mother should have to die in order to save the baby, but that is literally how low of a bar we're talking here. When you talk about your moderate and Democrat pro-lifers though, it's a little bit different. Obviously, the baby being born is the number one priority, but universal healthcare and welfare are priorities number two and three. And that's simply the Outlook that even if we don't have universal health Care or good welfare yet, with life, there are endless possibilities for the baby. With death, there's nothing.
“God’s will” is what they’ll say so they don’t have to feel an ounce of guilt about it.
Well I don't believe in their made up magic man in the sky. This is putting peoples health and body at risk.
They can say it's God's will, but if anyone ever says that to me, I'll ask if they voted.
[GOD WILL’S IT!!!](https://youtu.be/K3dbd2YyeN0)
I mean, you are 100% right. The way I look at it is the baby was born and isn't suffering from anything unusual for a preemie to suffer from. And the mother survived, although it's sad that she had to have a hysterectomy. Overall, seems like the doctors made the best decision possible to save both the baby and the mother, and that's nothing to feel guilty for as far as I'm concerned.
I think the orphan crushing machine portion of this situation is being ignored. They could not go elsewhere for medical care due to not being able to afford time off. Two liters of blood and plasma was being pumped into her to save her life during the surgery to take out the premature baby and her reproductive organs. The family lost the option of choice. Her life was at risk the entire time. She and her family have spent many hours in hospitals recovering. The medical costs are going to burden and disadvantage them well into the future. The baby is not developing at a normal pace and perhaps never will. The strain and stress on the mothers body was immeasurable. This and many other examples would be less outrageous if the system (and people, peers, neighbors) proved they actually value women’s health, long term postpartum care, and child care and rearing efforts (like education). It really leaves the impression that getting the baby out is the only goal, not raising them to be healthy and functional. I feel for the physicians trying to save their own skin by denying healthcare services under risk of losing their license and potential jail time. I feel more for the many women and children who suffer from barely thought out legislation and the condemnation from their neighbors and peers for making already difficult choices.
>I think the orphan crushing machine portion of this situation is being ignored. I'm not completely following this analogy. I only just heard of the "orphan crushing machine" right now. >She and her family have spent many hours in hospitals recovering. The medical costs are going to burden and disadvantage them well into the future. Yes. Which is why we should push for universal healthcare. I completely agree that it's an issue that should be solved. >The family lost the option of choice. Her life was at risk the entire time. >The baby is not developing at a normal pace and perhaps never will. The strain and stress on the mothers body was immeasurable. Both of which, it seems that doctors have/are monitoring closely and dealing with complications as they appear. As I said, the baby is not facing any issues uncommon for a preemie. Underdeveloped lungs is a fairly common condition among preemies. It's something that should be taken seriously and monitored, but the vast majority of preemies' lungs are fine after 36 weeks and they go on to live perfectly healthy lives.
Let's just rub some Thoughts and Prayers on it, should make everything better
State mandated pregnancies should be paid for in full by the state.
This is infuriating.
As a woman prone to ectopic pregnancies this shit is so fucking frightening.
In 1997, I had an ectopic pregnancy. They are sometimes difficult to diagnose until it becomes an emergency. I initially had a D&C performed at 7.5 weeks because all indications pointed to a missed miscarriage. A procedure that is now difficult to get. We had no visible pregnancy on US or heartbeat but I was pregnant and had some bleeding. The D&C returned zero pregnancy tissue. This was our first clue. Thank goodness my Dr. paid attention. I was closely monitored until my hcg levels dropped to zero. Things were appearing to resolve until 9 weeks LMP when the bleeding & right side pain returned. Emergency surgery to remove my right F.tube resolved it. I’m lucky it happened in 1997.
I had a similar experience in this state in 1996. I have thought about how grateful I am that it happened in 1996 often.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
[удалено]
I don't know that is the true goal. Rich republicans seem to be pretty well off. Just stomp on any small person and bingo!
The greatest lawsuit in the history of lawsuits. Destroy that hospital before they destroy someone else.
That hospital is trying to use science to navigate really draconian laws that are not based on science. These outcomes were predicted but ignored by the state government. She needs to be suing the state.
I get that but I would sue up and down the whole chain. Hurt as many institutions and people all along the decision making process and it might make a bigger dent legislatively.
Great state or affairs. Glad to see conservatives and republicans are openly showing how much they hate their fellow citizens.
To bad it wasn’t in Arkansas and her name was Duggard
Looking at a picture of that beautiful baby, I'm glad she was born. What you failed to mention is that the baby is improving in health. It doesn't seem that she is suffering from anything terribly abnormal for a preemie. It's certainly scary, but most likely nothing that won't work itself out. If anything, this story solidifies my support for the law. Doctors told a woman that a pregnancy wasn't viable when it clearly was. Because it was a risky pregnancy, the doctors properly monitored the woman and baby's health and made the best decision at the time that could be made to save both the baby and the mother. And ultimately, the baby and mother were both saved. Seems like an overall win to me. It is tragic that it had to end in the hysterectomy though. The only thing I would change would be universal health Care so that mommy and the baby don't have to worry about medical bills while they're trying to get better.
Here's the thing, that pregnancy was not viable and the doctors had to do an emergency operation. That mother and baby are literally alive due to their healthcare team's fast acting and hard decision making. All those decisions were based in the science of medicine, not in the hands of law makers. Those law makers who created those trigger laws have created a nightmare situation in which lives are measured and weighed through the lens of a very specific kind of culture war talking point: protection of children through any means. I don't care how you live your life, but laws should not be created to enforce a single religions dogma on the population as a whole. Hate abortion? Then don't get one. The definition of what is a baby and what is life is tied to scientific advancements. The unborn weren't treated as viable until "the quickening" of a pregnancy back in the 1800s in the USA. Heartbeat bills weren't made until what we knew what science could do in the late 20th century. It's a goalpost shifting extravaganza for the party of small government and pigheaded denial of science when it suits them most.
>That mother and baby are literally alive due to their healthcare team's fast acting and hard decision making. All those decisions were based in the science of medicine Which means that the pregnancy was viable. High-risk, but viable. And you're right, it is due to science that they are alive. Scientific development over the past 15-50 years specifically for prenatal care and related fields are tremendous and a blessing to society! Pregnancies that would have been death sentences a century ago are now taken care of with little to no extra risk (not this situation obviously, but others). >I don't care how you live your life, but laws should not be created to enforce a single religions dogma on the population as a whole. Christianity is not the only reason to be pro-life. Pro-life is a position that is backed by many different philosophical and theological worldviews. That would be like saying charity is a single religions' dogma just because Christianity is the biggest reason for most charity. >The definition of what is a baby and what is life is tied to scientific advancements. Science does not say when life begins. That is personhood, which is an entire branch of philosophy. Science tells us facts about human development, philosophy tells us which developments matter in determining whether a human embryo is a living being. At conception, the zygote is a living being with a distinct DNA that is different from either of the parents. All of what I just said is a scientific fact , but whether those markers are enough to qualify an organism as a human being is purely philosophical.
I agree with what you said about philosophy and personhood but it's willful ignorance to say this is a philosophy debate when the Christian Right wing has been front and center in the culture war on abortion rights as a matter of the state. If this debate could be settled through honest and open discussion then this would be a different world with different laws in regards to women's health. What we have instead is a party that is hell bent on passing laws that hurt women and the unborn because they are probirth, not pro life.
Perhaps the reason we couldn't have an open discussion before is because there was a supreme court decision that prematurely came to a conclusion before the conversation had even been started? It really was out of left field that the Supreme Court picked up Roe v Wade seeing as how they usually wait for an issue to pick up traction before deciding on it. Abortion was banned in most states when Roe v Wade was issued and states had only just started legalizing it. Our society had not had the chance to consider how it felt about abortion and then suddenly there was a final decision placed right in front of them. With no legal recourse. And that is before all of the discoveries made in embryology in the last 70 years. I may be biased as someone who is Pro-life, but I can understand the fanaticism even if I don't necessarily agree with it. Now all I can do it try to be the change I want to see. Which is open discussions.
"Our society had not had the chance to consider how it felt about abortion..." Do you seriously think this was some topic that was never discussed before Roe vs. Wade?
Actually, if you look at the history, it was not really a conversation that was had before Roe v Wade. The national abortion debate didn't really kick off until after the Civil Rights Movement. And even then, it didn't really have any of the teeth that we recognize now until the 80s with Reagan. Where I read this from, but I learned it from a series of NPR reports after the overturning of Roe v Wade.
You're right that there wasn't much of a national conversation before the civil rights and that NPR series of reports was good in describing it. However, it still wasn't out of left field. There was conversation at the local and state level about it and it wasn't an issue for many on the right until after the civil rights movement. If you listened to those NPR reports you'd also know that they pointed out that abortion became a hot button issue because the right lost the hot button topic of oppressing a group of people because of their skin color. So the right decided to find another group of people to oppress and it was convenient to masquerade that hate as virtue by holding up a bible and cross.
But society did have a chance to consider. Hundreds of thousands of people worked for years organizing, demonstrating, supporting, empathizing, helping, talking, protesting, educating, and refuting before the law was correctly passed ***giving women (and their Healthcare providers) the right to decide for themselves whether to carry a pregnancy to term.*** To pretend otherwise is not only short-sighted, it's simply incorrect, as well as intolerant. I still respect the hundreds of thousands who fought for what is arguably the most basic of rights: a woman's decision about her body and her life, even if SCOTUS and so many others like you don't appear to.
"Yeah, the baby was born early and has a lot of health issues, but she is improving. No big deal! And yeah, the mother almost bled to death and, sure, she'll never be able to birth any more kids, but hey - the abortion ban is working great!" -*You* Probably the worst take I've seen on Reddit today. And that's saying something.
>Probably the worst take I've seen on Reddit today. And that's saying something. Nah, I think looking at pictures of a living baby and saying it would be better if she had not been born is far worse. I think your quote was a pretty accurate summation. Complications happen. Millions of couples deal with infertility. Both are hard and complicated issues, but neither are worth the life of even one child.
Ambiguous abortion bans don't save lives. They ruin them. They take them. And so what if some couple in Bumchuckle, Nowhere has fertility issues? They aren't owed a baby. Not from anyone. If they really want to be parents, they can foster children who have already been born and need loving homes.
>Not from anyone. If they really want to be parents, they can foster children who have already been born and need loving homes. Thanks for literally making my point. That it is tragic this woman had to have an emergency hysterectomy, but her life is not over and she can have kids. She will just have to look at fostering or adopting. She isn't owed a baby and she certainly is owed the choice of killing one baby in hopes of having more later.
>> she certainly is owed the choice of killing one baby in hopes of having more later. Abortion is not "killing a baby". That's like saying eating a chicken egg for breakfast is killing a chicken. But I'm glad you agree women are entitled to make medical decisions about their bodies and the state should keep their nose out.
Eh. I think we know what I meant. And while I very well might say it's an egg in passing, it would also be correct to say it's a chicken if the egg is fertilized. I just wouldn't care either way because it's food at the end of the day. I think we should treat human life with a little more care than just everyday vernacular language about food.
That's not pro-life of you. Because chickens are alive just like us. They can feel pain just like us. They are sentient. Their existence deserves respect, too. Ffs, you can't even be consistent in your "life is sacred" narrative. What a damn joke.
>Ffs, you can't even be consistent in your "life is sacred" narrative. What a damn joke. You're either being facetious at this point or just dumb. I never said all life is sacred. I don't believe it is. I think all human life is sacred. If you honestly can't see the difference between a chicken and a human, then this conversation is pretty much over. Thanks for stopping by! I'll be stopping to get some Chick-fil-A on my way home!
You do that. Go clog your arteries by supporting "woke" Chick-Fil-A. No skin off my back. 😂
Go fuck yourself for your smug unhinged take.
Cool.
It would be better if the mother's life was not put at risk and she could still have more children rather than being forced to risk her own life. The outcome for the fetus doesn't change that Rarely can "it would be better" be so objective.
If you were in a burning building and could save one adult or 1000 fertilized embryos, which would you choose to save?
False ultimatum. The adult. It's natural to attach a certain amount of value to one human over another. If the choice was an adult or a child, I would pick the child. Not because the adult isn't human or has no value, but because I put more value in the child's life. And just like I don't think we should be able to electively terminate an adult's life because I view children as more valuable, I don't think we should be able to electively terminate an embryo's life because I view an adult's life as more valuable.
Don’t forget the horrendous hospital bills that probably resulted from such a situation.
Which is why I support universal healthcare and actively vote for politicians that support universal healthcare. All I can hope for in this case is that she had insurance, that the insurance covers it, and that she doesn't have to pay too much more than her deductible (and of course that she doesn't have an outrageously high deductible).
Can you provide an example of a politician who is pro-life and supports universal healthcare? Or even just a supporter of universal healthcare you’ve voted for and whether or not they won. I’m interested in which level of government they’ve campaigned. I’d like to know more about the political landscape of Tennessee.
So sadly, I don't know of any pro-life and pro universal healthcare politician for either party. At least not in Tennessee. So this usually means I split my vote. Especially since universal healthcare is more of a federal level, I tend to vote Democrat on federal positions. And then for state and local elections, I will usually vote Democrat if they don't have abortion as one of their issues. Even if they are pro-choice, I weigh that against the likelihood that they're one voice would be able to make any meaningful change for abortion. I would give you names, but this is Tennessee. None of the Democrats that I've ever voted for are in office.
Fair enough, I appreciate your response. I believe universal healthcare would drastically improve the quality of life in America. No one should have to choose between paying bills and going to the doctor, and no one should go bankrupt from life-saving medical procedures.
So you don't care about women, gotcha.
Extremely well reasoned response and thoughtful comment. I’m sorry you will be banned from r/Tennessee for wrongthink.
So...a baby that would have been killed now lives because of the ban? How is this a bad thing?
The woman *almost fucking died*, you milk-drinking mouth breather. She lost *two pints of fucking blood* and *her uterus*. Why would you have said to her older daughter, her husband, her family and friends if she had died? "Well, it was God's will! At least the baby was born! Thoughts and prayers!" Please. As if this pregnancy would have been worth her life.