SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I gave you a ton of supporting documentation and data. You've responded to none of it, including every single thing I said in my last post and your ONLY response has been to handwave it away.
Good grief.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump makes conflicting comments, both of them ominous and disturbing
- Thread starter It Aint Necessarily So
- Start date
Good grief.
You can't. Not without the consent of the Mother. You need the Mother's consent for all kinds of medical procedures that could be performed on the fetus.
It is if we declare it so.
As is your position and all positions in such matters. They're based in moral values, which are subjective.
Sure we can. The fetus isn't entitled to bodily autonomy unless we say it is.
Yes. You seem to object, probably on religious grounds again. I want the right to take my own life if I choose to (I have the ability perforce, since I can violate any law that tries to prevent me, but I'd also like that to be my legal right), and I also want the right to assisted suicide if I choose that. I can't imagine requesting a firing squad of sorts, but if somebody wants to be euthanized with a gun (after psychological and medical assessment), nobody should have the power to prevent that.
Yes. That was also true when most abortions were legal - limits to when that was legal.
No supportive documentation in that post, but she and others have provided that in the past, and you are free to Google supporting documentation for yourself.
No fearmongering, either. Your religion represents a tangible threat to the well-being of women. It's already harmed many since Roe was overturned and the theocratic Christians began banning abortions.
If you were interested in the facts, you'd know them already.
And it couldn't be clearer that you don't care about those women or their freedom or their well-being. And if you vote for Trump, it's also because you don't care about your country - just your church. That's where your "patriotism" and loyalty lie, which I for one find objectionable. Your religion is anti-American. It's anti-church-state separation.
Look at these words form Pence: “I am a Christian, a conservative and a Republican in that order.” American didn't even make the list.
These are among the reason I am anti-theist regarding American Christianity. Look at what it's doing to the country. This is why I chime in at every opportunity to expose the dangers and hypocrisies of it. This is why I want it shaping ever fewer people each decade. America doesn't need another enemy in its midst generating bad citizens, MAGA being the other.
If you want to try to rebut any of that with evidenced argument, I'm all ears.
I predict that you won't. You might snipe, deflect, or be dismissive, but you won't rebut. You won't identify specific claims that you consider wrong and try to demonstrate why they are (falsify them). Why? Because you can't. You cannot successfully rebut a correct claim.
These are hard times for preachers just as they have been for priests. Both have had it easy for centuries. Almost nobody contradicted or accused them. They had no platform, and the consequences were death at one point. All of you are experiencing the wrath of people who say to keep your hands out of kids' pants and your Bibles out of our lives:
"Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain." - A.C. Grayling
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"States Where Abortion Is Banned
As of January 9, 2023, 12 states are enforcing a near-total ban on abortion with very limited exceptions. In five of these states, the ban is being challenged in court but remains in effect. A court has blocked enforcement of a pre-Roe ban in West Virginia while it is being challenged in court.
1. Alabama—Near-total ban
2. Arkansas—Near-total ban
3. Idaho—Near-total ban
- A legal challenge to this ban, which seeks to expand the exceptions allowed under the ban, is pending in federal court.
A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.
5. Louisiana—Near-total ban
- A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.
7. Missouri—Near-total ban
8. Oklahoma—Near-total ban
- a legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.
10. Tennessee—Near-total ban
11. Texas—Near-total ban
- A legal challenge to this ban, which seeks to expand the exceptions, is pending in federal court.
- A separate pre-Roe ban has been blocked from enforcement while a legal challenge is pending in state court.
States Where Abortion Is Unavailable
In two states, abortion care is unavailable even though a ban is not being enforced. Legal challenges are ongoing in both states.13. North Dakota—Sole clinic moved to Minnesota
- A legal challenge to the state’s near-total ban is pending in state court, even though no abortion clinics are operating in the state.
- A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court. "
Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do So: A Roundup
www.guttmacher.org
Then there's Texas, where infant mortality has risen by 12-13% since their heartbeat bill went into effect:
"Key Points
Question How did Texas’ ban on early abortions in 2021 impact infant mortality in 2022?
Findings This cohort study of 94 720 recorded infant deaths in Texas and 28 comparison states found that the Texas abortion ban was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal mortality in 2022.
Meaning These findings suggest that abortion restrictions may have negative spillover effects on infant health."
Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy.
"Why do you think neonatal deaths from these anomalies increased?
AG: We think that prior to the implementation of SB 8, people who were carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe congenital anomalies had the option to terminate the pregnancy. This option is often exercised when the anomalies are incompatible with life or would result in significant suffering or health complications for the child.
We think that with the restrictive abortion ban in place, birthing people were all of a sudden not able to legally terminate pregnancies, even if severe congenital anomalies were detected, so these pregnancies were likely carried to term. And this probably led to an increase in births of infants with severe congenital anomalies, such as heart defects, neural tube defects, and other life-threatening conditions, who died shortly after birth.
Why did you take up the question of infant mortality? What is the connection with abortion access?
SB: Given that we had observed more births than anticipated in Texas after SB 8 was imposed, we suspected that there could be downstream effects of this policy on infant health outcomes as a result of a few potential mechanisms.
The most obvious is through an increase in deaths involving congenital malformation. As people are forced to continue pregnancies diagnosed with these fetal defects, we might expect to see a greater share of live births experiencing congenital malformations. Congenital malformations are the leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S., accounting for more than 20% of infant deaths.
Abortion restrictions can also lead to greater infant mortality simply as a result of more pregnancies being carried to term, and that’s more infants at risk of death. And the possible increase in financial and emotional stress among pregnant people, as well as a shift in the composition of those giving birth to include more disadvantaged groups who are unable to overcome the barriers imposed by abortion restrictions, may increase exposure to known risk factors for infant mortality.
Even prior to SB 8, there was some evidence of a relationship between abortion restrictions and infant death: States that are hostile to abortion or that have more abortion restrictions had higher infant mortality rates. But these studies were not able to directly attribute this difference in infant death to the policies’ imposition."
Texas SB 8 and Increases in Infant Deaths | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
The year after Texas passed its restrictive abortion law, infant deaths in the state increased.publichealth.jhu.edu
LOL… looking at your later post.. . I see you realized you hadn’t so you backtracked to post it later. It’s alright, I know you are human and can make mistakes. You are still loved!
OK… now you are giving me some substance… WHEW! That was like pulling teeth out!
So, we have an interview with an abortion supporter. I’m a stickler at politically correct speaking… so let’s look at what she said:
: We think (ok - she isn’t sure but she thinks it might be) that prior to the implementation of SB 8, people who were carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe congenital anomalies had the option to terminate the pregnancy. (no statistics, no known amount but at least she is thinking - they may have had the option but doesn’t say how many took the option) This option is often (often…hmmm… how often? That means some didn’t exercise the option?) exercised when the anomalies are incompatible with life or would result in significant suffering or health complications for the child. (OK. are the complications fixable? I remember those who survived saline abortions who are happy, though they suffered, remained alive.)
We think (there she is again… just thinking. Nothing for sure but at least she is thinking ) that with the restrictive abortion ban in place, birthing people were all of a sudden not able to legally terminate pregnancies, even if severe congenital anomalies were detected, so these pregnancies were likely carried to term.(is it wrong that the pregnancies were carried to term? Are they “promoting” the abortion because of the difficulty? Emotional pressure EQ that lowers the IQ? )And this probably (OOOPS - another “probably” but not sure. A definite “maybe”! Well… at least she is “thinking”! led to an increase in births of infants with severe congenital anomalies, such as heart defects, neural tube defects, and other life-threatening conditions, who died shortly after birth.
BUT….
Back to the original statement… all states permit abortions which was contrary to someone's statement.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I didn't backtrack.LOL… looking at your later post.. . I see you realized you hadn’t so you backtracked to post it later. It’s alright, I know you are human and can make mistakes. You are still loved!
Just re-posted the exact same thing I already posted to you, just a few posts earlier on the page.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I gave you this the first time around.
I'll have to respond tomorrow as I'm just going into a meeting, then going home. Have a nice evening!
OK… now you are giving me some substance… WHEW! That was like pulling teeth out!
So, we have an interview with an abortion supporter. I’m a stickler at politically correct speaking… so let’s look at what she said:
: We think (ok - she isn’t sure but she thinks it might be) that prior to the implementation of SB 8, people who were carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe congenital anomalies had the option to terminate the pregnancy. (no statistics, no known amount but at least she is thinking - they may have had the option but doesn’t say how many took the option) This option is often (often…hmmm… how often? That means some didn’t exercise the option?) exercised when the anomalies are incompatible with life or would result in significant suffering or health complications for the child. (OK. are the complications fixable? I remember those who survived saline abortions who are happy, though they suffered, remained alive.)
We think (there she is again… just thinking. Nothing for sure but at least she is thinking ) that with the restrictive abortion ban in place, birthing people were all of a sudden not able to legally terminate pregnancies, even if severe congenital anomalies were detected, so these pregnancies were likely carried to term.(is it wrong that the pregnancies were carried to term? Are they “promoting” the abortion because of the difficulty? Emotional pressure EQ that lowers the IQ? )And this probably (OOOPS - another “probably” but not sure. A definite “maybe”! Well… at least she is “thinking”! led to an increase in births of infants with severe congenital anomalies, such as heart defects, neural tube defects, and other life-threatening conditions, who died shortly after birth.
BUT….
Back to the original statement… all states permit abortions which was contrary to someone's statement as your information shows
Drunk_Uncle_Bob
Member
And it only took an overwhelming majority of single minded right wing Christian fundamentalist to achieve it after 50 years of struggle. Purely legally based. No bias at all.
Not at all, unless you want to say that the single minded left wing humanistic fundamentalist instituted the law in the first place because of bias.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I already gave it to you earlier in the thread. This was my second posting of the same information.
She has a PhD in Population, Family and Reproductive Health. In other words ... a doctor.
If you continued reading:
"We have evidence now that SB 8 led to immediate and significant decreases in facility-based abortions provided in Texas, more requests for medication abortion pills to self-manage one's abortion, and greater than expected live births among people residing in Texas, as work Alison and I have done previously demonstrated."
And:
Analysis Suggests 2021 Texas Abortion Ban Resulted in Increase in Infant Deaths in State in Year After Law Went into Effect | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Researchers use statistical modeling to estimate infant deaths expected if one of the country’s most stringent state abortion laws had not been enacted.
No. They're not "fixable." Hence the reason these infants are dying shortly after birth.
She and her colleagues have carried out actual studies. They're all listed there with clickable links.
Texas Abortion Ban and Live Births
This study evaluates changes in the number of births in Texas after passage of Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which bans abortions as early as 5 weeks’ gestation.
Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy
This cohort study of recorded infant deaths examines infant mortality after the passage of the 2021 ban on early abortions in Texas.
Yes. That's the entire point of this article. It puts women's lives in danger and increases infant mortality.
Good grief.
They're "promoting" abortion because it's the medical procedure to use in these particular instances in which the fetus has died or will be born and suffer an agonizing few minutes of life before it slowly dies, as the poor woman has to watch and then live with that for the entire rest of her life.
No idea what you're trying to say here or what your point is.
Are you going to address the increase in infant mortality anytime soon?
No, they do not. Read better.
Last edited:
It's the same as her earlier post.
The mistake is yours
Empty words. I'm sure she'd prefer an admission and an apology.
I wrote, "The fetus isn't entitled to bodily autonomy unless we say it is." Can we assume that you meant is (entitled) rather than can't? If you, yes you can, and your vote for a president so that he would stack America's Supreme Court with Christian theocrats enabled state legislatures in states where Christians elects similar state level candidates to write laws forbidding women and their doctors to choose and imposing your own choices on them according to what you have been taught your god commands has accomplished that.
And like I said, it's important to keep reiterating all of that. The American Christian church got what it wanted, and now it's getting what it deserves: ignominy.
What? Getting you to notice a post? She did have to work at it.
That didn't happen. Supreme Court justices did that in the early seventies. They weren't sent to the Court to do that. Nor were the presidents who appointed the majority justices elected to do that. There was nothing single-minded about any of that. That was in support of a general liberal agenda, which is unlike what the Christian church has done here in the pursuit of a single goal for a half century. It was a wedge issue used every election to bring Christians out to vote for theocracy, and it finally worked.
Now, the wedge issue belongs to the left, which will surely use it to bring women who care about their reproductive rights and freedoms and the people who love them out to vote against Republicans. You probably don't care now that you got what you want.
You used the word love and so did I. You told another poster, "You are still loved," and I called those empty words. Love isn't just a word or a feeling. It is manifest in action, action that promotes the well-being of the object of love. If you love anything here, it is fetuses. Your interest in protecting them until birth to get more people into the world. That's the opposite of love for everybody else involved - the women with unwanted or threatening pregnancies and the people who know what love actually is.
You no doubt disapprove of humanism given your description of humanists above, but humanism is the embodiment of love as I've defined it - an important message to present. For too long, the religious have been bandying that word about even as they spread their various bigotries and impose their religious laws on the unwilling.
The humanist agenda seeks to give the maximum number of people the greatest opportunity to pursue happiness as they understand that. It involves enabling people with a public education (not religion). It involves giving them social and economic opportunity. In involve dignity for all and freedom from food and shelter insecurity. It involves safe workplaces. It involves mitigating climate change. It involves access to health care.
These are things the people who theocratic Christians vote for oppose. When you vote Republican because you want to see America become more of a theocracy, you vote for hatred, and I consider it valuable to point this out.
As I said, I empathize somewhat with present day clergy. None of you signed up for this. Priests weren't associated with pedophilia when most contemporary priests went to seminary. When I was a young Christian, I considered becoming a pastor. It was a job that conferred instant respect. You were considered a good guy in a selfless profession.
But that's all changed since then thanks to endless sexual scandals being exposed and a few other turnoffs like the bigotries of Christianity. I think the best proxy for changing societal attitudes is the entertainment media. Up until about the seventies, the church and clergy were uniformly depicted favorably in movies like the Bells of St. Mary's, Boys Town, The Ten Commandments, and The Exorcist. Now, you almost never see the church or clergy depicted favorably in movies and cable series. The Sopranos and Blue Bloods were each from the perspective of Catholic families, and were largely pro-Catholic, but their priests weren't perfect people like Father Flannagan and Father O'Malley, because clergy are now seen as flawed people.
Your generation of clergy will take the brunt of the negativity for the church that's been growing for decades now, since those days when I considered a job like yours. And I'm sorry about that for you - not as sympathetic as I would be if you took a pro-American position and respected freedom from religion by denouncing these theocratic incursions rather than supporting them - but I think it's progress for mankind.
We really need to get the church out of government and the homes of the unwilling.
How do you think these attempts in Louisianna and Oklahoma to get the Ten Commandments onto public school walls and Bibles in public school curricula will affect the church's reputation among the general public? Probably about the way the book banning and "Don't say gay" legislation has. These are the kinds of things (and the reactions to them) that are making your life harder.
And, like media outlets, they all have their bias.
If you continued reading:
"We have evidence now that SB 8 led to immediate and significant decreases in facility-based abortions provided in Texas, more requests for medication abortion pills to self-manage one's abortion, and greater than expected live births among people residing in Texas, as work Alison and I have done previously demonstrated."
And:
Analysis Suggests 2021 Texas Abortion Ban Resulted in Increase in Infant Deaths in State in Year After Law Went into Effect | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Researchers use statistical modeling to estimate infant deaths expected if one of the country’s most stringent state abortion laws had not been enacted.publichealth.jhu.edu
OK… let me dissect. Less abortions and more deaths. (Quantity of more deaths not knows. If memory serves me correctly, it was like 18% more in that specific area of congenital defects. I assume the percentage per birth is small.
With those who died after birth, they would have been eradicated (death) before birth. Net difference of deaths on those who have cogential defects 0.
However, because of the law (in Texas alone) over 10,000 babies where birthed healthy, with a futre and a positive impact for the country.
Nearly 10,000 more babies born in nine months under Texas’ restrictive abortion law, study finds
This is the first analysis of live births since the law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect in September 2021.
We know that the Covid vaccine has side effects and some deaths. But because of the potential of lives saved (as per their statements) it is worth it. So I can deduct that the law is good because no additional net deaths have occurred and yet 10,000 were saved.
Texas Abortion Ban and Live Births
This study evaluates changes in the number of births in Texas after passage of Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which bans abortions as early as 5 weeks’ gestation.jamanetwork.com
Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy
This cohort study of recorded infant deaths examines infant mortality after the passage of the 2021 ban on early abortions in Texas.jamanetwork.com
Yes. That's the entire point of this article. It puts women's lives in danger and increases infant mortality.
Mistated. It doesn’t put women in danger - there is an increase of live birth deaths although they would have died in the early abortion anyway.
Are you speaking for them? There are medical professionals who, unless the mother’s life is in danger, wouldn’t agree.
Just did.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So how about we read her studies? Then we don't have to rely on her "bias."
To be clear, when she talks about it, she's talking about the findings of studies.
As I've pointed out several times and provided documentation, infant mortality has increased by 13% in Texas.
Those who died after birth, as already mentioned, died horrible excruciating deaths and unnecessary deaths. And as if that's not bad enough on it's own, imagine the psychological effect that is going to have on that women for the entire rest of her life, after having to deal with all of that. I've yet to see you show any concern for the woman involved in these cases.
This bill, which you apparently support, is forcing this to happen. It is forcing people to give birth to infants who are going to die the most horrific deaths imaginable, and it forces women to have to undergo this trauma when they don't need to. It also jeopardizes women's lives and physical health. The lack of empathy and compassion on your part is frankly, disturbing.
I noticed you've completely skipped over the part where Texas is basically torturing infants and women.
But yay, some more babies were born healthy so it all evens out? That kind of attitude just sickens me.
Yep, it does:Nearly 10,000 more babies born in nine months under Texas’ restrictive abortion law, study finds
This is the first analysis of live births since the law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect in September 2021.www.texastribune.org
We know that the Covid vaccine has side effects and some deaths. But because of the potential of lives saved (as per their statements) it is worth it. So I can deduct that the law is good because no additional net deaths have occurred and yet 10,000 were saved.
Mistated. It doesn’t put women in danger - there is an increase of live birth deaths although they would have died in the early abortion anyway.
"Although continuing the pregnancy put her at greater risk for infection and illness, Manzano’s life was not currently in danger, so her doctor would not terminate her pregnancy. Texas’ abortion laws have no explicit exceptions lethal fetal anomalies.
So she and her husband bought last minute flights to New Mexico. Her doctor refused to send her medical records to the clinic, instead requiring her to serve as the go-between.
“I was grieving, I was processing all of this, and then I was also feeling like a criminal,” she recalled recently. “It’s dehumanizing … and it shouldn't be like this for health care.”
Danielle Mathisen, an OB/GYN resident, and her husband were thrilled when they got pregnant right on schedule. But after a devastating fetal diagnosis, they had to scramble to travel out of state for an abortion. Credit: Courtesy of Danielle Mathisen
On Tuesday, Manzano and six other women joined an ongoing court challenge to Texas’ abortion laws, bringing the total number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit to 22, including two doctors. The new plaintiffs, like the other patients on the lawsuit, allege they were denied abortion care in Texas for their medically complex pregnancies, including cases where the fetus was not expected to survive after birth. The suit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, claims the state’s near-total ban on abortion violates their rights under the Texas Constitution.
After an emotional hearing in July, a Travis County judge granted a temporary injunction that protected doctors who, acting in their “good faith judgment,” terminate complicated pregnancies. The Texas Office of the Attorney General immediately appealed that ruling, putting it on hold until the Texas Supreme Court hears the case later this month.
“The harms to pregnant women in Texas is continuing every single day,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “As more people learn about the lawsuit, they continue to tell us the same things are happening to them.”
Manzano’s experience changed her mind about abortion, and she said she’s sharing her story in hopes of educating people who don’t realize how restrictive the state’s abortion ban is."
More women join lawsuit challenging Texas’ abortion laws
Twenty women are challenging the state’s abortion laws, saying they were unable to get the health care they needed for their medically complex pregnancies.
I'm explaining to you what we are talking about here. It would be nice if you responded to what I said.
You really think medical professionals are on the side of needlessly causing infants to suffer in agony and destroying women's health? Really? You really think actions that bring direct harm to infants and women jives with their oath to "do no harm?"
Are you ever going to address the human suffering involved with these draconian abortion bans?? Your beliefs, when enacted into law, are harmful to women and to infants. All while you proclaim you are "pro-life." That doesn't jive.
You seem to be fine with it, because ..... other healthy babies are also born.
And yet when I quote studies, I get charged with “bias”. Go figure.
Is this the one?
Results Between 2018 and 2022, there were 102 391 infant deaths in the US, with 10 351 of these deaths occurring in the state of Texas. Between 2021 and 2022, infant deaths in Texas increased from 1985 to 2240, or 255 additional deaths. This corresponds to a 12.9% increase, whereas the rest of the US experienced a comparatively lower 1.8% increase. On the basis of the counterfactual analysis that used data from Texas and eligible comparison states, an excess of 216 infant deaths (95% CI, −122 to 554) was observed from March to December 2022, or a 12.7% increase above expectation. At the monthly level, significantly greater-than-expected counts were observed for 4 months between March and December 2022: April, July, September, and October. An analysis of neonatal deaths found somewhat similar patterns, with significantly greater-than-expected neonatal deaths in April and October 2022. Descriptive statistics by cause of death showed that infant deaths attributable to congenital anomalies in 2022 increased more for Texas (22.9% increase) but not the rest of the US (3.1% decrease).
I want to know for sure before I address it - if not… which one are you specifically referring to?
I don’t understand… “Unnecessary deaths”. Are you saying they didn’t need to die? Or that they would be dead in the womb through abortion?
So, if there is abnormalities that will result in death, then amend the law… but still save the 10,000 other babies.
I see the exaggeration… duly noted.
Are you changing the guidelines? So if some people have, as you say, experienced “horrific deaths” because of Covid Vaccine… we shouldn't have it mandated?
Yep, it does:
"Although continuing the pregnancy put her at greater risk for infection and illness, Manzano’s life was not currently in danger, so her doctor would not terminate her pregnancy. Texas’ abortion laws have no explicit exceptions lethal fetal anomalies.
So she and her husband bought last minute flights to New Mexico. Her doctor refused to send her medical records to the clinic, instead requiring her to serve as the go-between.
“I was grieving, I was processing all of this, and then I was also feeling like a criminal,” she recalled recently. “It’s dehumanizing … and it shouldn't be like this for health care.”
Danielle Mathisen, an OB/GYN resident, and her husband were thrilled when they got pregnant right on schedule. But after a devastating fetal diagnosis, they had to scramble to travel out of state for an abortion. Credit: Courtesy of Danielle Mathisen
On Tuesday, Manzano and six other women joined an ongoing court challenge to Texas’ abortion laws, bringing the total number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit to 22, including two doctors. The new plaintiffs, like the other patients on the lawsuit, allege they were denied abortion care in Texas for their medically complex pregnancies, including cases where the fetus was not expected to survive after birth. The suit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, claims the state’s near-total ban on abortion violates their rights under the Texas Constitution.
After an emotional hearing in July, a Travis County judge granted a temporary injunction that protected doctors who, acting in their “good faith judgment,” terminate complicated pregnancies. The Texas Office of the Attorney General immediately appealed that ruling, putting it on hold until the Texas Supreme Court hears the case later this month.
“The harms to pregnant women in Texas is continuing every single day,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “As more people learn about the lawsuit, they continue to tell us the same things are happening to them.”
Manzano’s experience changed her mind about abortion, and she said she’s sharing her story in hopes of educating people who don’t realize how restrictive the state’s abortion ban is."
More women join lawsuit challenging Texas’ abortion laws
Twenty women are challenging the state’s abortion laws, saying they were unable to get the health care they needed for their medically complex pregnancies.www.texastribune.org
I'm explaining to you what we are talking about here. It would be nice if you responded to what I said.
And I have been responding. Are you suggesting we amend the law for certain exemptions?
Are you speaking out of the side of your mouth when you support abortion and say “do no harm”? Confusing here.
I keep addressing and you keep saying I’m not… why?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If God supposedly planned for each of us, then He also must be OK with abortion [miscarriages & still births].
IMO, I'm not going to try and tell a woman what she must do with what's in her body. If I supposedly have that right, then what's next: telling her which operations she must or must not have?
IMO, I'm not going to try and tell a woman what she must do with what's in her body. If I supposedly have that right, then what's next: telling her which operations she must or must not have?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Don't drag me into your disputes with others. I haven't said you're biased anywhere here.
But if you don't want to come off as biased, then you should support your statements with scientific studies and credible news sources.
That's the one.
What I am saying is that the bill in Texas has resulted in people being forced to give birth to infants who have severe birth defects and WILL NOT SURVIVE. What will and is happening, is that these severely handicapped infants, which would have otherwise been aborted much earlier in the pregnancy, because they are NOT VIABLE, are being forced to be born "naturally" and then they suffer in absolute horrendous agony and live only minutes or hours. And during all this the woman is forced to experience the trauma of all of this, then watch her newborn infant suffering in agony in her arms until it inevitably dies. What kind of a mental toll do you think that has a human being for their entire life? I've not seen you address the mother's life/condition in any of this. You should watch the tearful testimony of a woman who had to go through all of this, thanks to Texas' draconian laws.
I'm trying to illustrate to you the unintended consequences that arise when your draconian beliefs about other peoples' bodies becomes enacted into law. It demonstrates that people who run around proclaiming how "pro-life" they are, really aren't all that pro-life at all.
Instead, they're pro-fetus.
Oh, it's torture alright. It's absolutely insane to me that you don't recognize that.
The women in Texas are none too impressed with what's happening to them. You should read some of their testimonies.
"On Tuesday, Manzano and six other women joined an ongoing court challenge to Texas’ abortion laws, bringing the total number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit to 22, including two doctors. The new plaintiffs, like the other patients on the lawsuit, allege they were denied abortion care in Texas for their medically complex pregnancies, including cases where the fetus was not expected to survive after birth. The suit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, claims the state’s near-total ban on abortion violates their rights under the Texas Constitution.
After an emotional hearing in July, a Travis County judge granted a temporary injunction that protected doctors who, acting in their “good faith judgment,” terminate complicated pregnancies. The Texas Office of the Attorney General immediately appealed that ruling, putting it on hold until the Texas Supreme Court hears the case later this month.
“The harms to pregnant women in Texas is continuing every single day,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “As more people learn about the lawsuit, they continue to tell us the same things are happening to them.”
Manzano’s experience changed her mind about abortion, and she said she’s sharing her story in hopes of educating people who don’t realize how restrictive the state’s abortion ban is."
More women join lawsuit challenging Texas’ abortion laws
Twenty women are challenging the state’s abortion laws, saying they were unable to get the health care they needed for their medically complex pregnancies.
No, I'm questioning the things you're saying to me.
They haven't.
I'm suggesting the law sucks. I'm suggesting it's far too draconian and oppressive. I'm suggesting that the people who made these laws didn't think them through to their logical conclusions, mainly because they don't really care about the people involved. I'm suggesting that women should be free to make decisions about their own bodies. Period.
Are you kidding me? I just explained to you what I'm talking about.
This was in response to, "You really think medical professionals are on the side of needlessly causing infants to suffer in agony and destroying women's health? Really? You really think actions that bring direct harm to infants and women jives with their oath to "do no harm?"
So you're cool with the increase of the suffering and death of infants?
Hasn't he made it clear enough yet that he doesn't care? You're trying to get sympathy for those children, but his loyalty is to his god and what he believes it wants from him. All you can accomplish here is to point that out and how anti-American and anti-mother and child that is. He will never care about what you care about, so why do more than post relevant statistics and be done with it? Begging someone to read and try to understand has a stake in not understanding is pointless and suggests that you think he can do better if you just show him the facts and try to get him to take an interest in those mothers and children, but by now you can see that that's never going to happen. Well, maybe if it happened in his family, but not before that.
@Kenny - please feel to rebut that if you think that there is any evidence that I am wrong. I'm not interested in opinion, just evidenced argument.