Jump to content

Meadowchik

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meadowchik

  1. Adults are not living inside another person.
  2. In the example of the late term abortion I provided with the podcast link, the woman must decide quickly because of Missouri law. The law doesn't help her, it just accelerates her choice, because she doesn't want to lose the ability to stop her baby from suffering for weeks and weeks. If this example is compelling to you, please consider other stories and how the women are impacted by the law. As I said, the better way is for abortion to be safe, accessible, and legal but something that women rarely need to consider. What can we do to help them?
  3. There is a price with every choice. The choice she makes, but also the choices we make about her choices. You might have missed this: Amulek, Consider that mythical woman who wants to abort her healthy term baby. If it's legal, we could give her the option of inducing and adoption, of course. So that increases the chances of the baby's survival. If it's illegal and she's still desperate, perhaps she pays someone to do it for her and dispose of the dead, or she delivers the baby alone--both with risk her and the baby. But, enlarge the perspective where she is allowed to chose. Imagine a world where she has choice and help available to her. She's going to be more likely to seek help earlier. She's more likely to have preventative care. She's more likely to have birth control. All in all, a world where she is humanised is a world where where she'll be more willing and able to be pregnant and give life to her baby. No, they are not.
  4. Amulek, Consider that mythical woman who wants to abort her healthy term baby. If it's legal, we could give her the option of inducing and adoption, of course. So that increases the chances of the baby's survival. If it's illegal and she's still desperate, perhaps she pays someone to do it for her and dispose of the dead, or she delivers the baby alone--both with risk her and the baby. But, enlarge the perspective where she is allowed to chose. Imagine a world where she has choice and help available to her. She's going to be more likely to seek help earlier. She's more likely to have preventative care. She's more likely to have birth control. All in all, a world where she is humanised is a world where where she'll be more willing and able to be pregnant and give life to her baby.
  5. What about the real cases? Do you know what they are or are you merely indulging hypotheticals?
  6. Sure thing. The thing is, we can never get around the absolute that the unborn is within her. We cannot Dr. Frankenstein the issue. It cannot be won by force. In fact, it's really not ours, it's hers. Help her--if she needs it. But most of all, respect the universe that is within her. PS regarding popularity, how much of the population actually understand pregnancy and human reproduction enough to be able to vote on what one among them does?
  7. You asked a question I had already made clear. It's not your decision or anyone else's whether a woman continues a pregnancy. I was clear. Stupid podcast, eh? How much time have you spent participating in threads debating abortion? How much time have you spent listening to women who've actually chosen abortion? Hers is an actual experience, not a speculation on what it's like or how people chose it.
  8. Did you listen to it? She wanted her baby but chose abortion to spare her child additional suffering. Since there was no amniotic fluid, baby Grace was being crushed continuously, and she lacked several vital organs. Her mom made that choice in the interests of her child.
  9. No, I think for many women, the choice to chose abortion is a choice FOR life. They're the ones who will know when it needs to be made. Also I'll just add that there seems to be such little awareness of how nature works: half or nearly half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted...something goes wrong or is wrong and that egg/fetus or unborn are expelled by the body or/and they die in the womb. All the while it is women who live this process throughout their years of fertility. What is essential to remember is that every pregnancy is a risk and we shouldn't force women to continue the risk if they don't want to, or even if they change their minds. People often compare pregnancy to organ donation: If you agreed to give your brother your second kidney to save his life, you could opt out up until the moment they put you under anesthesia. No one can force you to risk your life to save him, even if that means he will die. At it's simplest, women who abort are choosing life--their own life--and it's not our choice to make them do otherwise.
  10. Sigh. Listen to this and get back to me: https://pca.st/episode/5ea47f0c-7f8d-49c3-aa3a-bfe4b8021df3?t=75
  11. I have addressed all of those things, many times, and the proper resolutions that should be available for E. But regarding E, abortion should be available on demand, period. Just because it is available, legal, and safe, however, doesn't mean it will be chosen. Our collective responsibility in addition to ensuring that right, is to do our best to prevent the need (or perceived need) for it. The cost of forcing the pro-life way onto women's and children's bodies will have deleterious effects on the whole system which will undermine any other possibilities for remedies. Specifically, abortion bans treat women as sub-human. It's harder for people to flourish when they're being treated as incubators. But, as you say, atleast you're saving babies, so there's that overall perceived benefit. But now those babies are babies of women who are being mistreated by society. Also, abortion bans don't tend to come along alone, they are typically joined by more measures underpinned by the sexism that drives abortion bans. SCOTUS has just emboldened misogyny and women and everyone they care for will bear costs of that.
  12. Banning abortions shouldn't be taken out of the context of why they happen. If they don't and thus no effort is made to reduce those pressures on women, the weight will only be heavier for them. Yesterday a man told me that even if all the resources used to overturn Roe v Wade saved only one child, it would be worth it. But ironically he argued against actually helping women to help reduce abortion. I asked him if he was willing to help help women if it could "save only one child." He didn't answer. Expanding the context even larger, when people calculate induced abortions, the figure is in all likelihood not even half of all spontaneous abortions. Who cares about the spontaneous abortions? Who cares about improving female health and prenatal care to improve pregnancy outcomes and save the unborn who are wanted but lost naturally? If you SMAC want the prolife side to soften people's hearts as you talk about in the OP, I think you all will struggle to build credibility if you don't make concrete efforts to care for the women who are stuck in untenable circumstances that make them seek abortions, and if you don't make concrete efforts to help improve women's health to improve maternal and fetal outcomes when no abortion is sought.
  13. My friend collected this and gave permission to share: Maternal mortality in the US is 23.8 per 100,00 live births as of 2020. The risk of maternal mortality for Black women is significantly higher. It’s 55.3 per 100,000. In comparison, driving a car (one of the most dangerous things we do in the US) has a mortality rate of 11.7 per 100,000. However, maternal mortality only tracks to 42 days postpartum. More than 25% of women experience postpartum mental health issues and suicide accounts for 20% of women’s deaths in the first year postpartum. These are not tracked. Additionally, maternal mortality rates are likely significantly under reported. Severe maternal morbidity (not mortality) impacts about 1000 wyte women per 100,000 births but is more than twice that for Black women and almost twice the rate for pregnancies in under 20 year olds. However (again), maternal morbidity is likely extremely underreported as the “most common definition, developed by the CDC, is based on 21 indicators (16 diagnoses and five procedures) identified by an array of diagnostic codes assigned at the time of birth.” IOW if it’s not immediately adjacent to an in-hospital delivery of a baby, it’s not well tracked. A woman’s risk of being murdered during pregnancy or the year after pregnancy is 16% higher than women who are/were not pregnant. 1 in 6 women who experience domestic abuse are first abused during pregnancy. Having a child permanently impact’s a woman’s chances of working and the more children she has, the less likely she is to work. It also causes a temporary drop in earnings that takes more than a year to recover from. Women experience a higher rate of poverty than men and women with children experience a higher rate of poverty than women without children. Almost 25% of unmarried women with children are living in poverty. Pregnancy, and everything that goes with it, is hazardous. Major social reform and technological (medical) innovation can reduce the hazards. Banning abortion cannot. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-02-23/u-s-maternal-mortality-rate-surged-in-2020). https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449205/ https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/25/health/postpartum-depression-womens-health-wellness/index.html https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8 https://www.marchofdimes.org/pregnancy/abuse-during-pregnancy.aspx https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/cost-of-motherhood-on-womens-employment-and-earnings.html https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-women-poverty/
  14. My point is that with the burden on the provider to effectively "prove innocence" the status of legality of abortions for medical emergencies is murky.
  15. Check out this section which discusses the legal burden on the provider: 3. It shall be an affirmative defense for any person alleged to have violated the provisions of subsection 2 of this section that the person performed or induced an abortion because of a medical emergency. The defendant shall have the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017 Is this (and potential other) details the reason Guttmacher characterized it the way it did?
  16. Here it is: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-missouri "In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of June 28, 2022: Abortion would be banned if Roe v. Wade were overturned. A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two trips to the facility. "
  17. It's not misinformation to point out that government intervention in women's health will impact them negatively. Look at Missouri's new law. It technically has exemptions for medical necessity but requires a three day waiting period before an abortion procedure. This is effectively a total ban for medical emergencies which cannot wait that long. Just FYI: the uterus is a very efficient bleeder. I lost thirty percent of my blood within a few hours when my first was born. Miscarriages can go badly and require immediate medical assistance.
  18. I lived in Indiana for a few years and still have friends there. Unfortunately I can't disagree you. Hope you will have to hunt sauce for crow.
  19. The facts you claim don't alleviate the problem that the federal protections of women's reproductive rights have been removed. And they don't alleviate the fact that interference in medical care will impact care. If the past is an indication the impact will be harmful.
  20. Calling reasoned concern scare tactics is dismissive and will in itself appear less reasonable, less credible, and less comforting. A much better approach would acknowledge the legitimate distrust and then go on with, "here's what we know so far." And then be ready to adjust as new information appears and as facts change.
  21. Yes, whereas it was less relevant with federal protections. If for example under federal law the state cannot prohibit abortions before 12 weeks, for example, providers would need only check that she's at less than 12 weeks to ensure legal compliance. So when a woman comes in with a possible miscarriage at 14 weeks, the doctor would have to be very careful, not just in a medical sense but with all the additional legal layers. Because if she is not miscarrying, then it could be illegal for the doctor to administer drugs intended to help complete the process. This legal layer of treatment can cause delays and even has the potential to prevent access to appropriate treatment.
×
×
  • Create New...