NineOneFour wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:She is dead. Healthcare is for living people. We do not publicly fund the healthcare system so they can spend money to treat dead people to ensure the survival of a non-person because the father wants it. The fetus was not a person yet immense resources were pumped into allowing it to be born. It's completely unjust that a dead person recieved medical care at the cost of living people who actually would have benefitted from it.

The baby is only alive because we as a province paid for a dead person to recieve medical care, denying living people who could have benefitted from it, to keep a non-viable fetus alive for the sake of the father's emotions. It is utterly unjust to society as well as setting a terrifying precedent that a) non-viable fetuses are to be treated as people ie: ensuring their survival and b) dead women's bodies are to be utilised for the reproductive wishes of others.

I pay taxes to provide people with medical care, not corpses and I certainly don't pay taxes to gestate non-viable fetuses at the behest of the father. He should have been required to pay those bills, not me. Fetuses aren't entitled to medical care because they aren't people. Neither are dead bodies. He demanded a dead body recieve medical care fore the sake of the non-viable fetus inside it and we paid for it.

And now we're spending fuck knows what a day to keep the baby alive in an ICU because the father insisted on using his dead wife's body to incubate it to the point it could be born alive and we will continue paying it's healthcare costs, which will be immense, for the entirety of it's life because it gave someone the warm fuzzies to permit a father to utilise his dead wife's body for his own purposes on the province's dime. And don't forget that extra day we kept the woman's dead body on life support! We paid for that too and it wasn't to benefit this fetus. It sure wasn't to benefit the dead woman. It was exclusively so she wouldn't "die" on the day the baby was born. We paid for a day of life support to spare feelings. WTF?

If you ever run into that boy I hope you're gonna be a bit nicer to him than you're being now.

Can you actually provide evidence that this child even exists? Or is this more Lying for Jesus?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:She is dead. Healthcare is for living people. We do not publicly fund the healthcare system so they can spend money to treat dead people to ensure the survival of a non-person because the father wants it. The fetus was not a person yet immense resources were pumped into allowing it to be born. It's completely unjust that a dead person recieved medical care at the cost of living people who actually would have benefitted from it.

The baby is only alive because we as a province paid for a dead person to recieve medical care, denying living people who could have benefitted from it, to keep a non-viable fetus alive for the sake of the father's emotions. It is utterly unjust to society as well as setting a terrifying precedent that a) non-viable fetuses are to be treated as people ie: ensuring their survival and b) dead women's bodies are to be utilised for the reproductive wishes of others.

I pay taxes to provide people with medical care, not corpses and I certainly don't pay taxes to gestate non-viable fetuses at the behest of the father. He should have been required to pay those bills, not me. Fetuses aren't entitled to medical care because they aren't people. Neither are dead bodies. He demanded a dead body recieve medical care fore the sake of the non-viable fetus inside it and we paid for it.

And now we're spending fuck knows what a day to keep the baby alive in an ICU because the father insisted on using his dead wife's body to incubate it to the point it could be born alive and we will continue paying it's healthcare costs, which will be immense, for the entirety of it's life because it gave someone the warm fuzzies to permit a father to utilise his dead wife's body for his own purposes on the province's dime. And don't forget that extra day we kept the woman's dead body on life support! We paid for that too and it wasn't to benefit this fetus. It sure wasn't to benefit the dead woman. It was exclusively so she wouldn't "die" on the day the baby was born. We paid for a day of life support to spare feelings. WTF?

If you ever run into that boy I hope you're gonna be a bit nicer to him than you're being now.

Can you actually provide evidence that this child even exists? Or is this more Lying for Jesus?

Oh, he does, and his dad's milking the story for everything it's worth.

I'd rather be nice to living persons in need of medical attention and direct resources into them than dead people and non-viable fetuses. But it makes a great story and someone gets to sell a book.

The Tennessee state legislature gave final approval Wednesday to a bill that allows women to be charged with assault if they have a pregnancy complication after using illegal drugs. Advocates argue that the bill is so poorly written that it could subject any woman with a poor pregnancy outcome to criminal investigation.

SB 1391 passed the house Wednesday afternoon on a 64-30 vote, after passing the state senate on Monday on a 26-7 vote. Since the bill passed both chambers of the legislature, it now heads to the governor’s desk.

Farah Diaz-Tello, staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told RH Reality Check that some lawmakers mistakenly believe pregnant women prosecuted under the new law would only be charged with a misdemeanor and referred to drug court for treatment.

“The law itself, even though it permits women to be charged with misdemeanor assault, in no way limits the prosecution to misdemeanor assault, nor does it limit the prosecution to women who are illegally taking narcotics,” Diaz-Tello said.

In other words, any woman who gives birth to a baby with health problems, or who loses a pregnancy at any stage, could be subject to criminal investigation, “because criminal investigation is the only way to rule out an unlawful act,” Diaz-Tello said.

The original bill allowed prosecuting a woman for homicide if her fetus or baby died, but it was amended to only allow assault charges. The most severe crime a pregnant woman could theoretically be charged with under the new law is aggravated assault, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.

Tennessee is the first state in the nation to successfully pass a law like this, allowing for the criminal prosecution of pregnant women based on pregnancy outcome. Other states have tried, especially during the “crack baby” scare a few decades ago, but the proposals have always been defeated.

Last year Tennessee lawmakers battled over similar legislation, ultimately settling on the “Safe Harbor Act.” That act created incentives to get pregnant women who use drugs into treatment programs, and guaranteed that so long as the women continued their treatment, their newborns would not be taken away by the Department of Children’s Services solely because of their drug use. But prosecutors and law enforcement complained that the Safe Harbor Act did not go far enough, and insisted that criminal prosecution based on pregnancy outcome was necessary. Wally Kirby, executive director of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, explained law enforcement’s position to reporters last year, when the Safe Harbor Act was being debated: “We don’t have any problem with these mothers trying to get treatment and trying to get help, but if we have a child that’s damaged because of this drug injection, or stillborn, we need the ability to prosecute these ladies.”

Medical experts are opposed to criminalizing pregnancy outcomes resulting from drug use, because it can discourage women who use drugs from seeking prenatal care, or even encourage them to abort a wanted pregnancy rather than risk prosecution. Even some anti-choice groups spoke against the bill, Diaz-Tello noted, because it could encourage more abortions.

“Quite honestly, any kind of punitive approach, from a health care perspective, drives women underground. It doesn’t encourage them to get treatment,” Gary Zelizer, director of government affairs for the Tennessee Medical Association, told The Tennessean.

Should the measure be enacted, the effects will be far-reaching. Felony convictions in Tennessee result in a revocation of voting rights, while criminal convictions generally make finding future employment difficult, if not impossible.

“If they wanted to pass a law saying it’s a crime to give birth to a baby with neonatal abstinence syndrome [or born addicted to drugs], they could have done that,” Diaz-Tello said. “But instead they did this, which is broader and more devastating.”

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I wonder how much the nice ladies they pay to come forward and say tearfully "I regret my abortion" make.

Anti-choicers would like you to believe they are very concerned about abortion regret. Conservative websites fill up with tales of woe from women who claim they would like to take an abortion they had back, even though they often don’t consider that doing so would mean they’d have to give up the life path that led to their current happy circumstances—husband, children, and so on. The implication is that abortion regret is so terrible that if only a few women regret their abortions, abortion itself must be banned. This logic is not carried over to other decisions that are far more frequently regretted than abortion. For instance, a far higher percentage of people who marry will regret that decision—as any divorce statistic will confirm—and yet somehow the “we must ban every decision a person could possibly regret” logic doesn’t get invoked when it comes to marriage.

Iowa is now considering a bill that would allow abortion patients to sue a doctor for abortion regret, even if they received counseling and signed informed consent forms prior to the abortion. The bill gives women a ten-year window to come to the conclusion that they regret their abortion and to sue. Since none of us really knows where we’ll be in ten years, this opens abortion providers up to all sorts of unfair lawsuits, since there’s no way to know that the 21-year-old women’s studies major with a pro-choice button on her bag getting an abortion today is going to get married and join a fundamentalist church and decide she must produce “abortion regret” in penance before she’s 30.

More to the point, the bill shows how cynical and insincere anti-choicers are when they pretend to care about women experiencing abortion regret. If they actually cared about women who are suffering from abortion regret, they wouldn’t blame the doctor. They would blame the people who actually caused the regret. For instance, you would be able to sue a partner or parent who shamed you, or your church for telling you that your past behavior was sinful, or your local anti-choice organization for provoking these feelings of shame and regret. That makes a whole lot more sense that blaming the doctor.

If you read the abortion regret stories that proliferate in anti-choice circles, what comes across loud and clear is that the feelings of regret owe far more to the pressure from churches and right-wing organizations and other people in the community who shame women than to doctors—who in many cases were the only people who were generous and non-shaming to the women.

CONTINUES WITH ACTUAL EXAMPLES

purplerat wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

What has the fetus done to you to demand that it be born motherless and likely with severe disabilities that will impact the quality of whatever life it may have? Seriously what's with your obsession with creating as many people as possible with apparently zero regard for what their lives may be like once they leave the womb?

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote:If the woman did not abort before she "died" we have to assume she wanted to carry the pregnancy to terms. To respect her wishes the doctors should make a reasonable attempt to save the baby.

The situation is obviously different when she is being given an invasive medical treatment in order for the pregnancy to continue. Consent is needed for that. If she's had the foresight to make her wishes known in advance, then there's no further decision to be made.

redwhine wrote:

purplerat wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Seriously, why do you want that fetus to die so hard? What has it done to you? You can no longer claim that the well-being of the mother has got anything to do with it.

What has the fetus done to you to demand that it be born motherless and likely with severe disabilities that will impact the quality of whatever life it may have? Seriously what's with your obsession with creating as many people as possible with apparently zero regard for what their lives may be like once they leave the womb?

The cafflicks fear they may run short of choirboys to molest.

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

michael^3 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

Every day people are run over by cars, so it's permissible to push people under cars.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:She is dead. Healthcare is for living people. We do not publicly fund the healthcare system so they can spend money to treat dead people to ensure the survival of a non-person because the father wants it. The fetus was not a person yet immense resources were pumped into allowing it to be born. It's completely unjust that a dead person recieved medical care at the cost of living people who actually would have benefitted from it.

The baby is only alive because we as a province paid for a dead person to recieve medical care, denying living people who could have benefitted from it, to keep a non-viable fetus alive for the sake of the father's emotions. It is utterly unjust to society as well as setting a terrifying precedent that a) non-viable fetuses are to be treated as people ie: ensuring their survival and b) dead women's bodies are to be utilised for the reproductive wishes of others.

I pay taxes to provide people with medical care, not corpses and I certainly don't pay taxes to gestate non-viable fetuses at the behest of the father. He should have been required to pay those bills, not me. Fetuses aren't entitled to medical care because they aren't people. Neither are dead bodies. He demanded a dead body recieve medical care fore the sake of the non-viable fetus inside it and we paid for it.

And now we're spending fuck knows what a day to keep the baby alive in an ICU because the father insisted on using his dead wife's body to incubate it to the point it could be born alive and we will continue paying it's healthcare costs, which will be immense, for the entirety of it's life because it gave someone the warm fuzzies to permit a father to utilise his dead wife's body for his own purposes on the province's dime. And don't forget that extra day we kept the woman's dead body on life support! We paid for that too and it wasn't to benefit this fetus. It sure wasn't to benefit the dead woman. It was exclusively so she wouldn't "die" on the day the baby was born. We paid for a day of life support to spare feelings. WTF?

If you ever run into that boy I hope you're gonna be a bit nicer to him than you're being now.

Can you actually provide evidence that this child even exists? Or is this more Lying for Jesus?

Oh, he does, and his dad's milking the story for everything it's worth.

I'd rather be nice to living persons in need of medical attention and direct resources into them than dead people and non-viable fetuses. But it makes a great story and someone gets to sell a book.

Agrippina wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

Every day people are run over by cars, so it's permissible to push people under cars.

That doesn't answer my question. Why isn't God concerned about all the unrecognised self-abortions. Why does he let this happen? You'd think if every sperm is sacred, then every fertilised egg is as well. Why are you concerned about the one a woman consciously aborts, and not the dozens that will abort by her body without her even knowing about it?

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

michael^3 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

Every day people are run over by cars, so it's permissible to push people under cars.

michael^3 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

If you ever run into that boy I hope you're gonna be a bit nicer to him than you're being now.

Can you actually provide evidence that this child even exists? Or is this more Lying for Jesus?

Oh, he does, and his dad's milking the story for everything it's worth.

I'd rather be nice to living persons in need of medical attention and direct resources into them than dead people and non-viable fetuses. But it makes a great story and someone gets to sell a book.

No seriously, if you ever meet that boy you should tell him that in you opinion he should have been killed because you had to pay too much tax money to save him. Because that is exactly what you think. Or maybe you can calculate the precise amount of money you lost on this and demand it back, so you can donate it to a more worthy cause.

NineOneFour wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

Every day people are run over by cars, so it's permissible to push people under cars.

michael^3 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I still haven't seen any anti-abortion comments about all the millions of fertilised eggs that self-abort without the woman even realising she was pregnant. I suppose those hadn't been infused with souls yet, so they don't count. God the abortionist.

Every day people are run over by cars, so it's permissible to push people under cars.

That doesn't answer my question. Why isn't God concerned about all the unrecognised self-abortions. Why does he let this happen? You'd think if every sperm is sacred, then every fertilised egg is as well. Why are you concerned about the one a woman consciously aborts, and not the dozens that will abort by her body without her even knowing about it?

Have you never suffered a moment of cognitive dissonance about being angry at God and not believing in God at the same time?