No need to go that far, but court ordered contraception would be appropriated in such cases.Next we'll be hearing that women such as Martina should have court ordered hysterectomies.
No need to go that far, but court ordered contraception would be appropriated in such cases.Next we'll be hearing that women such as Martina should have court ordered hysterectomies.
Lilith is a mythical woman in Jewish theology (who also shows up elsewhere unsurprisingly), Adam's first supposed wife, and folklore had her as a killer of babies and children and seducer of men and a whore. There's a passage in the Talmud which makes a connection to her and abortion, that if a woman aborts and her child is born looking like Lilith, then the mother is evil, or something along those lines.Bells you're scaring the shit out of me. I never even heard of this "lilith" myth character.
Sooo...What happened to all the sane, reasonable, practical people then? Where'd they all go? LOL
Instead of providing her with medical care, shelter and a safe environment, she was locked up in prison under the pretext that paint fumes were endangering her foetus, until she felt that the only way to get out of jail was to have an abortion and the moment she did, they let her out. Forcing someone into that position where they feel compelled or forced to have an abortion is just as bad as denying women who seek to have an abortion, the ability to have one that is safe.Capracus said:The state of North Dakota did this woman, her kids present and future, and society in general a favor. She was already determined to be an unfit mother to her present children, you could argue the state would be negligent in allowing her to make it worse with another.
No need to go that far, but court ordered contraception would be appropriated in such cases.
Very easily.@Bells
How could it possibly get worse?
Very easily.
They can ban it altogether.
They are already attempting to restrict access to birth control. Banning abortions or making it so hard to access that it will become an impossibility for the greater majority of women.. Women who are miscarrying and going to Catholic run hospitals in the US are already being denied treatment, leading to some nearly dying due to infections. In some cases, they won't even treat ectopic pregnancies if there is a foetal heartbeat. There are even websites dedicated to telling women who they don't need to abort an ectopic pregnancy as they can still deliver the baby naturally. The Catholic Church manages and owns a large portion of hospitals in the US. In some areas, it is the only hospital they have in their county. There was one woman who had to drive 90 miles for treatment after she miscarried and the arm of the foetus was sticking out through her cervix and they refused to treat her as there was still a foetal heartbeat. The doctors and manager's of these hospitals aren't charged with endangering the lives of women. Far from it.
Once they are able to overturn Roe v Wade, then yeah, we'll go back to the days of coat hangers and bleach.
American women have become complacent. All the women who fought for this right got what they wanted and relaxed. Now there are forces who are rolling back on reproductive rights and there is no one to head them off because women have taken this right for granted.
So when a woman has been legally determined by her behavior to be a threat to her present or future children’s welfare or mortality, she should be allowed to conceive additional victims?I'm sorry, what?
You want to control when 'certain' women can have babies as well now?
You think the State should involve itself in what woman can have children? Forced contraception injections until the State deems them worthy of being allowed to have a child?So when a woman has been legally determined by her behavior to be a threat to her present or future children’s welfare or mortality, she should be allowed to conceive additional victims?
See, most people see that case to be an abomination.Too bad conditions in the state of Alabama couldn’t give this woman a similar out.
The same way the black market has made drugs safer by ensuring that they are of standard potency to prevent unintentional overdose, formulated in pristine laboratories to prevent contamination, in a process overseen by highly-paid professional chemists to prevent formulation errors?I would hope that some of the witch-doctoring that will go on in order to provide all sorts of alleged abortifacients at least gets some organized-crime support, which will do much regulate quality and even provide opportunities for these black-market formulae to include some genuine science and technology.
So the Border Patrol will now have sonogram technology. "Hey, there was a baby in there when you crossed into Mexico on Tuesday. Where is it now?"And if the cartels want to make some money, they can start smuggling patients across the border and back for medical treatment in order to offset the losses in their narcotics sectors as more jurisdictions in the U.S. and around the world hop on the legalization train.
That will put the Republicans in a difficult position. Their campaign against women's rights will conflict with their campaign to make sure that all new jobs are created in China.One thing is for certain: FAP will create jobs.
Ever since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival began, around 1980, there has been a steady backlash against all of the progress we achieved in the 1950s-70s. We were certain that by the turn of the century there would be no more racial discrimination, no more wars of opportunity, no more second-class citizenship for women, no more persecution of users of drugs that are safer than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, and no more respect for religious notions from the Stone Age.I find it so confusing. Why is there suddenly such a strong backlash against medical access for women's reproductive rights?
Because we haven't stopped celebrating the quantum improvement in children's health that began in the late 19th century. Until then, infant mortality (defined as dying before reproductive age so as not to contribute to survival of the species) had been a steady 80% since the Stone Age. Literally, almost everyone was constantly grieving the loss of a child.Nearly seven U.S. babies die out of every 1,000 live births. More than 28,000 American babies die before their first birthday. Why aren't they rallying around that?
I understand the argument that our welfare system is easy to game, and a significant percentage of Americans who get social services are cheating. Nonetheless, the vast majority of them are not.Then there's this beaut. 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.
You don't even have to resort to caricatures. Children who grow up without a male elder--especially little boys--are under a great handicap. Just look at America's predominantly Afro-American inner-city populations. Because of the racially biased enforcement of our drug laws, even though the rates of drug use in the black and white communities are virtually identical, black men are four to eight times as likely to be in prison for drug crimes. As a result, black households often have no male elder, and there's even a shortage in the community as a whole. Those who can be found are obviously likely to have prison records, so the only "jobs" they can get are dealing drugs, making them unattractive as father figures. Furthermore, women on welfare lose their benefits if a convicted felon lives in their home, so they remain single. And just look at the state of civilization in those communities with no male elders.Okay but what about the child then? Aren't they even remotely concerned about what life would be for a child being raised by the irresponsible, evil, poor, uneducated and unprepared husbandless woman?
The hyperbole in this thread is just amazing. Does anyone discuss anything any more? Or is that passe?
You think it is exaggerated?The hyperbole in this thread is just amazing. Does anyone discuss anything any more? Or is that passe?
Pro-lifer's are all about saving the baby.
You think it is exaggerated?
So your solution is to deny personhood to the fetus at any point while in the womb? Hmmmm, pro-lifers hate those arbitrary lines drawn, as well. Bells, are you asking for a million, hoping at least to get three-fourths of the asking price?
What about the mother?So your solution is to deny personhood to the fetus at any point while in the womb? Hmmmm, pro-lifers hate those arbitrary lines drawn, as well. Bells, are you asking for a million, hoping at least to get three-fourths of the asking price?
In a second case, Dr. P spoke about his patient in a hospital that had been sold three years before to a major Catholic health system. The conflict arose when the patient presented to the emergency room with a molar pregnancy for which the standard care is evacuation of the uterus. Molar pregnancies (or ―moles‖) consist of abnormal cells that multiply rapidly. They can lead to cancer and are therefore considered a threat to the woman's health or life. Patients may require treatment with chemotherapy in order to stop the rapid reproduction of tissue. In rare circumstances, a woman may be pregnant with twins and have one viable fetus and one molar pregnancy. Dr. P described the case,
This was a twin pregnancy. There was one healthy appearing baby and the other was a typical mole. And generally — I mean, this was diagnosed early in the pregnancy... [We told] the patient what her risks are and she didn't want to carry the pregnancy further but by the time she reached that decision, she was about 16 weeks gestation. And she had vaginal bleeding so of course she now goes to the hospital ̳cause she has vaginal bleeding... And then you can't do anything while she's there [in the Catholic hospital], you can't help her end the pregnancy in a hospital setting that's safer... [The ethics committee] refused.
Dr. P transferred the patient out for care, despite her bleeding, and despite the fact that terminating a bleeding molar pregnancy is safer in the hospital setting due to a high risk of hemorrhage.
Dr. L (Dr. P's colleague and witness to the case) discussed her medical concerns about molar pregnancy,
It's such a dangerous thing that we recommend a woman not get pregnant for a full year after treatment for a molar, because we really want to make sure that there's no residual [molar tissue] in her before she gets pregnant again. So it's pretty dire.
Dr. L, a religious woman, specifically wanted us to know she did not perform ―elective abortions. She also noted that when the hospital where she and Dr. P work was bought by the Catholic system, she was reassured that medical issues would be dealt with according to her medical judgment as long as she consulted first with the Catholic ethics committee. So, she was shocked when her ethics committee denied Dr. P's request to evacuate the uterus of his patient. They rejected his request based on internet research. She explained, ―The clergy who made the decision Googled molar pregnancy. Based upon this search, ethics committee members ruled, ―There's a possibility that she could actually have a viable pregnancy [because] there have been
cases where a child was born. Thus, the ethics committee identified treatment of this molar pregnancy as equivalentto abortion or ―a termination — a conclusion Dr. L strongly objected to:
They called it a termination, which is a bogus term ̳cause you're not terminating anything but a horrible situation. [They said], ―You can't do it here. Take her to another hospital to do it...A molar that bleeds, you can't move her. You've got to take care of her there... but regardless of which, he had to transfer her
And so we'll continue to advance a more reasonable perspective instead of trying to springboard from the deplorable into the deplorable. I appreciate that you see no differences between our opinions and 'pro-life', but that, is your failing, and not ours.