Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Tell that to Josseli Barnica.
:focal(0x0:888x592)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/1392dfc322a19ac86a880247cfedca7c/Vanessa%20PPTT%2001.jpg)
A Texas woman died after the hospital said it would be a crime to intervene in her miscarriage
Josseli Barnica is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed emergency care.
www.texastribune.org
If you cannot distinguish between losing a child through no fault of your own and deciding you want them to die, you are lost. And so is anyone with that difficulty, including doctors.Tell that to Josseli Barnica.
A Texas woman died after the hospital said it would be a crime to intervene in her miscarriage
Josseli Barnica is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed emergency care.
"We need to intervene because my offspring is dying inside of me" is different than "we need to intervene because my offspring is living and healthy and I don't want them to be." You blur the lines to rationalize the latter, and then complain to me when your purposefully blurred lines hurt people.
Who's actually blurring that line, here? Republican legislators punishing people who fall into the former camp right alongside those who fall into the latter camp. Not the people who point out how wide a group is hurt by your dogma.
Last edited:
How far into the pregnancy would you say the foetus becomes a baby? (or put another way: when it is not immoral terminate the pregnancy, assuming there are no medical issues present in the foetus or mother)
And has been stated: only Gergar12 talks about cloning and he has some... interesting views which on this forum at least seems unique to him.
IIRC, Tstorm has already answered this question a few times: when the sperm reaches the egg. So, several hours before conception.
A person is always a person, there is no "how far in".
In this case, Schadrach did.
The Texas heartbeat law did not ban treatment of that woman. " Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AA Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter. " It's not even any pickier than that, it doesn't specify life of the mother must be in danger, it doesn't give any specific requirement, just the physicians belief that there is a medical emergency that needs treated.
So the law didn't cause them to not treat that woman, their misperception of the law did. And why did they misunderstand the law? Because people like you keep pretending Republicans will throw them in jail. Misinformation has consequences.
The much greater influence to cause these consequences will be the vigour with which red state DAs have aggressively pursued anyone and everyone they could on these issues. Congratulations, the intimidation campaign worked.
Take some goddamn responsibility.
Medical practitioners feel they must act with extreme caution, precisely because Republicans frequently go after them even in cases where the law is ostensibly on their side. Borderline cases, or cases that cannot be absolutely proven, are liable to be litigated and pursued by the kinds of ideologue that will refuse to believe any procedure is necessary. Even if the practitioner ends up getting absolved, it can take an age (and more than a little money) as it grinds through the court. Reputation and job at risk.
It's a chilling effect, and it's entirely intentional.