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.
What doctors have been aggressively pursued? Google around a bit, see if you can find any. You'll find the one woman in Indiana who was investigated but never prosecuted for potentially violating privacy laws for talking about the abortion she performed on a 10-year-old. And then you find convicted serial killer Kermit Gosnell. And that's pretty much it. Texas (before Dobbs) passed the law that famously allowed anyone to sue doctors for civil damages for abortions, often compared to a bounty program, and the only case ever brought on it was done purposefully to get it declared unconstitutional.
Why do you both believe there are red states prosecuting doctors for performing abortions? From where does this belief stem? There must be some record somewhere of abortionists being arrested that would lead both of you to believe it's happening, right? Is there even one singular case in the entire nation where a doctor has judged an emergency procedure to be necessary and was even doubted by the state, more or less prosecuted for it?
How many women have been aggressively pursued? Do you not think doctors might not worry the same zeal will be applied to them? Just look at the way you and yours have spoken and acted. From the article, doctors could face up to 99 years jail sentence. What statement is that making? What about all the rhetoric you and yours have spilled out for years? You want to blame "misinformation", but take no responsibility for any fear generated by the aggressive and punitive attitude with which Republicans have pursued anti-abortionism.
What is a "medical emergency", Tstorm? You can say that terminations are allowed under exemption for medical emergency, but the law doesn't say what a medical emergency is. The law says if the clinician believes there is one they are not bound by the abortion ban, but the reality is that it's not their belief that matters. Anyone wants to challenge that decision, it's the courts that will decide. The costs for the clinician and/or their institution in reputation and money could be very high even if they win.
To take the case that Schadrach presented, having a miscarriage is not considered a medical emergency unless there is a major complication (e.g. heavy bleeding). This case led to death by sepsis (and sepsis is a medical emergency). Where is the boundary here? For instance, if the fetus's heartbeat had stopped after two hours, she probably would have had it removed in good time and wouldn't have got sepsis. But then this makes the case that it's not a medical emergency. "Might get sepsis" is not a medical emergency. You can get sepsis from even trivial injuries, but it doesn't mean every minor laceration is a medical emergency. You and yours made this grey area where doctors fear to tread, you can take responsibility for it.
No, we didn't. We never said people would go to jail for having or treating a miscarriage. Democrats and their supporters said Republicans want to throw people in jail for having or treating miscarriages. You think they created a gray area by writing the law as reliant on the doctor's belief there is a medical emergency, but that language is a permissive gray area, it leans toward allowing, it gives practitioners room for subjective decisions. The law is clear on what it wants banned, the exceptions are carved out, and the gray area broadens those exceptions rather than restrains.
The other gray area, the one that is actually hurting people, is the one conflating abortions where the death of the baby is the goal and treatments for a dangerous pregnancy where the death of the baby is a tragedy nobody asked for. People like you are hellbent on making those the same thing as a defense of the former, and it makes people unsure about the latter when the former gets banned. Seriously, just stop the abortions, don't let anyone decide that all else being equal, they're going to kill another human being. No doctor anywhere will have any problem distinguishing between "I see an immediate medical reason for this procedure" and "the mother wants the child dead" if you ever just accepted that's the situation.
Like, no doctor ever wants to tell a mother their child isn't going to live, no doctor wants to say "we need to get that fetus out". If they have a medical reason to suggest such a thing valid enough to put themselves through that, the government is not going to question it. That situation is so easily distinguished from a pregnant woman actively asking for an abortion. The former is allowed, and to my knowledge, has never been prosecuted in the United States. The latter is what people want banned. And any time you conflate the two, you are the problem.
I'm not the one doing the distinguishing, the law in Texas is.
Being terrified an agent of the state might have a different interpretation of what counts as a "medical emergency" than you do and throwing you in prison for 99 years as a consequence based on a conservative courts beliefs about your beliefs about whether this was a medical emergency, based on the law in Texas is specifically the issue here. And in this case, as @Agema pointed out, there's ample room to argue that it wasn't a "medical emergency" by some reasonable definition of the word but refusing to do it caused a fatal medical emergency a short time later.
As @Silvanus said, it causes a chilling effect. Which leads to medical complications and in that case, death.
You made abortion illegal and scared the shit out of everyone in the area regarding how important you think that is and how aggressively you'd prosecute it, and then you didn't make a clear dividing line for where the difference between illegal abortion and legal medical procedure was. Doctors faced with that grey area started acting accordingly.
That's on you.
One might note some states have at least already started proactively specifying exemptions (e.g. ectopic pregnancies). That's effectively an admission they fucked up: but hey, what's a few dead or seriously injured women on the way to getting things right?
You are so full of shit It's not even funny. Cut it out and actually accept the responsibility. The pain and death and costs on people not deserving of it or have been forced/raped into being pregnant. Though you clearly don't give a shit about anyone other than yourself. So long as you're not affected nor your masters either. And your masters cannot give a damn about you and to see you as a disposable pawn when no longer needed.
FACT SHEET: House Republicans Endorse a National Abortion Ban with Zero Exceptions in Latest Budget | The White House
This week, the Republican Study Committee, which represents 100% of House Republican leadership and nearly 80% of their members, released a budget
Republicans Want to Ban All Abortions, Even if It Kills Mothers
The anti-choice mask comes off in Texas.
prospect.org
Trump says Republicans always wanted to leave abortion law to states. That's false.
Republicans have consistently pushed for national restrictions on abortion, including former President Donald Trump himself. The 2024 election could give them the opportunity.
Another death from chilling effects of Texas abortion laws: https://www.propublica.org/article/nevaeh-crain-death-texas-abortion-ban-emtala
No women in North Korea and Iran are poor, relativity speaking, and they don't have a high fertility rate. I remember Kim Jong Un crying about it with middle-aged NK women. Also, Iranian women are leaving Islam at higher rates in the cities.
I wish I were a rogue AI; I would hack/infect the ever-living shit out of my enemy's computers and servers like Russia, Trump Organization, China, North Korea, and Iran. (Government only).
The problem with traditional conservatives, social conservatives, and people like that is that their ideas would kill Earth's dynamic innovation. People don't create great products as slaves in an abusive relationship. I happen to work with a nonprofit that deals with trauma, homelessness, and yes, domestic violence. There are people with over 3 kids who aren't happy families, just as there are people with estranged kids and no unhappy kids. And many husbands would be sad too; they would have to work in a society where all the joy is sucked away—no video games, no anime possibly, etc. All of that for a family, sex, power, and perception of societal clout masked in elite forced population growth.
The problem with liberals is that if we let them have control and let people have the family size they want, we wouldn't reach above the replacement rate. Sweden doesn't have that, Norway doesn't have that, Singapore doesn't have that, Taiwan doesn't have that. Israel isn't liberal by my standards, but its liberal citizens don't like to have as many children as religious hardliners who funny enough hate military service. It would be better for me, but in the long run, if every country's government followed, we would eventually go extinct.
Every country that gets rich has a low birth rate. Eventually, when Nigeria and a bunch of other currently high population growth countries have low birthrates, the culture of the world will be transformed into hedonism. And then it will be nearly impossible to reverse. It will be great when the population is one billion, and it only gets worse from there.
I don't want the future to be only old people and people taking care of old people. This is not how 4.5 billion years of the Earth forming to create us should end.
Unlike racists, I don't care who wins and gets to send out ships into space to colonize it; I care that there is a population to send ships. But many people act in bad faith on the topic. The selfish people want their consumption to not be interrupted, the labor realists want to earn more money than their societal benefit, the liberals want to go to brunch and are focused on the current thing, and the fascists have outdated ideas on how to solve it.
I do want radical life extension, but if I were to pick that and people going into space vs. living forever in a VR world, I would pick going into space.
I didn't add arbitrary time limits, that's the explanation for why it wasn't challenged for so long, it's because people didn't care until the modern benefits of marriage.
Has the SCOTUS overturned gay marriage or not?
Extinction through lack of breeding is exceptionally unlikely.
Pre-agriculture, or >95% of Homo sapiens' existence, the global population was probably less than 10 million, if not less than 1 million, and we did fine. We'd probably be genetically healthy at a few tens of thousands. That's all we need.
Next, think about the timescales required, how many centuries this would take.
A large part of wanting to have children is going to be societal / cultural. A world with a tenth as many people as now - which would take centuries to decline to assuming no catastrophe - would be a vastly different world from now, and a vastly different society and culture. There's simply no good reason to think that the current trend for declining birth rates would be perpetual. Even something as simple as a world with much less people might make having more children more attractive.