Jump to content

Menu

How to avoid getting sued in Texas?


Ordinary Shoes
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Janeway said:

No, you are wrong. That is what the media tells you. The long term consequences of abortion in most women is devastation.

This is misinformation. 

In fact, studies show that long term, even women who struggled immediately after their abortion, also reach resolution. 

I've had abortions. I'm not devastated at all. Not short, mid or long term. There are women on this thread who have had an abortion. Most of them weren't  devastated either. 

When I can be bothered to deal with this blatant fake news, I'll dig up the long term study which backs up this lack of devastation. The study was not run by the media. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Janeway said:

[Removed by moderator for being unnecessarily graphic.]

 

I am angry that anyone would disrespect SWB by starting this obviously political thread on her board when not debating politics was one of the few things she asked for. And the murder of children is a big trigger for many people.

You need to get a grip. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Terabith said:

The effect of this law is going to be to completely isolate women.  It simply will not be safe to interact with anyone with a uterus.  You cannot drive anyone with a uterus anywhere.  You cannot babysit for her.  You cannot have a private conversation with her.  You cannot provide her with health care of any sort.  You cannot pay her for anything, because she might use that money to get an abortion.  

This does not just impact pregnant women.  It does not impact only people planning an abortion.  It does not just impact WOMEN.  It is not safe for ANYONE to interact with a person with a uterus.  This will completely isolate women, but it also puts men in real, genuine danger, too.  

C'mon. 

It affects females. Can we at least use that instead of the dehumanising 'person with uterus'?

This is a women's rights issue.

Talk about being dehuanised by the right and the left. 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MooCow said:

I can't believe I'm stepping into this. I remember when I got pregnant with my oldest. I was working my first real job right out of highschool. I remember talking w/ a family friend who was also my boss. She told me the only reason to have a child is because you want one. She expressed how difficult raising a child was and said: only do this if you really want to. Because there will be many days you will want to leave said child in the forest and of course you can't. For me, I realized I wanted to have my baby. Have never ever regretted it since. And y'all have heard how difficult it was raising that baby. It was the best choice for me. The key word there is "me".

I am a Christian. I would never pretend to know what another woman is thinking or feeling. I can only imagine a woman making the decision to terminate is not a happy, joyous time, even if they decide it's the right choice for them. Maybe I'm a bad Christian because I would never judge them, I don't walk in their shoes and quite frankly, who the hell am I to judge?? I can't help but think our Creator would have compassion and love for them because we humans are flawed beings. 

With a young adult daughter I pray her choice is never taken away. 

Flame away. 

No, this is good religion. 

If it helps, good religion in the form of firstly, a priest, and secondly, a monk, was part of my recovery from abortion stigma. 

A million times wiser, more compassionate, and more Jesus-oriented than some posters on this thread. 

You hold on to your compassion. You are in good company. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Janeway said:

Anyone can be sued for anything at any time. No one is required to hire a lawyer. Anyone can countersue too.  This law is going to protect a lot of women, and children. And I have not seen anything at all online stating that anyone can sue anyone who could be linked to an abortion at all, even if they did not know the abortion took place, and win. I think this is an extreme leftist idea that was put out there to try to get people up in arms.

There are usually consequences for bringing false claims. Under this law, there are no consequences for bringing false claims. The law clearly states that a defendant cannot recoup legal fees even if they win. 

Quote

Republican lawmakers’ move to ban nearly all abortions in Texas was accomplished through a huge, unprecedented expansion of who can bring a lawsuit against someone else: Under the law, anyone can sue anyone who performs, aids or intends to aid in an abortion — regardless of whether they have a personal stake in the abortion performed.

Problem is how to define "aids" an abortion. Does that include babysitting or driving someone to the doctor? 

Quote

Texas’ abortion law goes much further. Typically, in tort law, which is used to compensate people who have been injured, a person must have incurred some sort of personal harm in order to sue someone else. That’s the very nature of what a civil court is intended to remedy in such a case, several legal experts told the Tribune. Texas’ new abortion law, however, gives that privilege to anyone.

Quote

Adriana Piñon, a senior staff attorney and policy counsel for the ACLU of Texas, said the new law “stacks the deck” against defendants and encourages plaintiffs to sue by including various mechanisms in the law, such as barring a change in venue unless all parties agree, limiting the legal defenses that the defense can present and awarding the plaintiff $10,000 at minimum if they are successful in the suit.

“This leaves open the courtroom door in Texas,” she said.

Piñon and others worry about an avalanche of lawsuits that could be launched against abortion providers, doctors, nonprofits, volunteers or even private citizens who help a family member or friend in getting an abortion.

Texas abortion law a “radical expansion” of who can sue whom, and an about-face for Republicans on civil lawsuits

Quote

It’s the enforcement provisions that make the Texas legislation unique, however. Everywhere else, only a few public officials can prosecute this kind of law. This law goes much further by allowing any person other than a state or local official to sue an abortion provider or someone who “aids and abets” another person in obtaining an abortion, whether or not they were directly involved and whether or not they’re located in Texas.

Quote

Similarly, someone who provides funds for an abortion could be sued, even if they didn’t know that’s what the money was being used for. And since anyone who "intends to engage” in providing an outlawed abortion can also be held liable, it’s possible to imagine that the rapist or other party could sue the provider in advance of the procedure to stop it from happening, denying the victim the ability to have the abortion.

Hint - that means don't give any woman of childbearing age money. 

Texas abortion law paves way for every right-to-lifer to sue abortion doctors

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Spryte said:

It will be interesting to see what happens to their OB/GYNs now. I wonder if they lose even more?

The liability insurance in order to practice will probably go through the roof. And the thing is, it isn't just OB's, it is the trauma doctor, paramedics attending a pregnant woman, the intake nurse at the hospital, everyone involved on mere suspicion. I would not practice in that state. There would be no way to follow best medical practice and not end up sued.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/research/maternity-care-deserts-report.aspx

Check this map. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that most/all women ANYTHING needs to quit being pushed.  Every woman is an individual.

Also, if the majority can’t bring themselves to abstain from parties and restaurants to save lives, it’s insane that they should ever dare to promote abstaining from sex to save abortions.

Anyway, I’ve lost two pregnancies. One very much planned, and one on some of the most effective birth control available. That second one left me with a giant scar, a missing body piece, and permanent nerve damage.  Though traumatizing at the time, I was only emotionally burdened for a couple of months each. And yet, that doesn’t lead me to believe that’s “how these things go” for most women. I’m capable of recognizing the wide and varied spectrum of the human condition and the validity of individuals’ experiences.

I will never understand how people convince themselves that THEIR beliefs should be legislated, but others’ beliefs are meaningless.

And now I’m just annoyed that I wasted time typing, and not even very coherently!

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 6:06 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

Why don't you force me to donate a kidney? I know several people who have donated kidneys and they're fine. 

The lack of a working kidney will always result in the death of another person. 

There is a difference between the lack of something causing a death (lack of food, lack of functioning kidneys, lack of a cancer cure) and a deliberate action of force causing a death. In the case of a lack, sometimes the need can be met, sometimes it can not. We should always try to meet it. In the case of a deliberate action of killing, it can almost always just not be done.

You're using a rather out there example ("you're the only match in the world for someone who needs a kidney, and you're know it, and they'll die right now if you don't give it") to justify deliberate killings that happen about 2,400 times every day in the U.S.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bookbard said:

Cannot believe people are suggesting women should die rather than end a pregnancy. This is all whipped up by men, in order to extend their own power. You're playing right into their hands by supporting them, and you know what? You think you'll be safe because YOU won't have an abortion. Eventually, they'll come after you, too, and you'll wish you stopped them while you could. 

No joke! And the sheer number of people defending this and then getting vicious with those of us who have faced this situation, faced this loss, barely survived that horror show, have most certainly shown their true colors.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

The idea that most/all women ANYTHING needs to quit being pushed.  Every woman is an individual.

Also, if the majority can’t bring themselves to abstain from parties and restaurants to save lives, it’s insane that they should ever dare to promote abstaining from sex to save abortions.

Anyway, I’ve lost two pregnancies. One very much planned, and one on some of the most effective birth control available. That second one left me with a giant scar, a missing body piece, and permanent nerve damage.  Though traumatizing at the time, I was only emotionally burdened for a couple of months each. And yet, that doesn’t lead me to believe that’s “how these things go” for most women. I’m capable of recognizing the wide and varied spectrum of the human condition and the validity of individuals’ experiences.

I will never understand how people convince themselves that THEIR beliefs should be legislated, but others’ beliefs are meaningless.

And now I’m just annoyed that I wasted time typing, and not even very coherently!

 

You were very coherent, and said this well!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, stepping away now. 

I wish those who are all 'killing babies' would learn from my priest about how to talk outside of a pro-life meeting. 

The zeal to save potential humans seems to not consider the actual humans in front of them. Unfortunate. 

Terrible, terrible law, and I feel for Texan women and girls. 

 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 6:06 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

Do you believe that pregnant women have the human right to avoid a medical condition? We shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Well, how realistic is it that to ensure that someone isn't forced to undergo birth which might kill them?" 

Conceivably you could completely eliminate many crimes. Make child abuse illegal and monitor every family to ensure there is no abuse. 

But there is no realistic way to prevent abortion. There will always be pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. 

Why not start first with the things that all of you agree would be good for pregnant women like maternity leave and programs to help poor families. Why is criminalizing abortion the first step instead of the last step? 

To your first question, no. I don't believe pregnancy is just a "medical condition." There is another human being involved.

I have never said that anyone should be forced to undergo birth that will kill them. I have said that in those cases, women should receive necessary treatment. Doctors should attempt to save both patients, but if that is not possible, sometimes the tragic death of the child may result. It should never be intended. 

We haven't yet succeeded in completely eliminating any type of crime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw things that take the lives of other human beings. 

This is not an "either / or" issue. I am all for programs that help women and families. I can be against unjustly killing human beings at the same time. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 6:09 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

Sure. I wouldn't have an abortion. 

But when another woman has abortion "we" are not killing someone. 

Why not let her make the decision about what's right for her instead of taking away from her the right to make the decision? 

Like I wrote upthread, pregnancy is unique in that there are two lives one body. There are times when the interests of both lives are completely aligned. But there are other things when they are not aligned. Who gets to decide what to do then? 

When you say that we should err on the side of "not killing," you are saying that the mother is subordinate to the baby. 

No. I am saying every human being has the right to life. Period. The mother. The baby. Neither is subordinate. 

No one should have the "right" to decide to kill another human being.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Carolina Wren said:

Having a beating heart doesn't make someone a human organism under the biological definition of life, which is why Roe was decided that way in the first place. It may in some religious groups be used to identify human life, and that's fine, but imposing this religious interpretation on millions of  unwilling people who may conceive through no fault of their own is IMO a violent act. Forced childbirth in support of someone else's ideology would literally be torture to me.

No. It absolutely makes them a human organism. Roe would say that it doesn't make them a person under the law. We have called other humans "non-persons" in this country in the past. Nothing new. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, my religion has very little to do with my pro-life beliefs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Junie said:

"A more comfortable life" was probably not the best phrasing for me to use. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

This was the specific study that I was looking at.  Most of the reasons that women give for having an abortion deal more with the hardship of raising a child than the hardship of giving birth.

I know that there's not really a type of woman who has abortions.  It happens across all demographics.  But, most of the reasons given in this survey would be what I consider quality of life issues, not health issues. 

Those of you who are saying that pro-lifers need to step up in other areas -- financial support, emotional support, childcare, adoption -- are absolutely right.  

Yes, I also was going to reference this study. The Guttmacher Institute was the research arm of Planned Parenthood and now is an independent pro-choice group.

Florida records the reason for every abortion and their figures are much the same. From 2018:

.01%    The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
.14%    The woman was raped
.27%    The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
1.0%    There was a serious fetal abnormality
1.48%    The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
1.67%    The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
20.0%    The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
75.4%    No specific reason given; elective

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MercyA said:

To your first question, no. I don't believe pregnancy is just a "medical condition." There is another human being involved.

I have never said that anyone should be forced to undergo birth that will kill them. I have said that in those cases, women should receive necessary treatment. Doctors should attempt to save both patients, but if that is not possible, sometimes the tragic death of the child may result. It should never be intended. 

We haven't yet succeeded in completely eliminating any type of crime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw things that take the lives of other human beings. 

This is not an "either / or" issue. I am all for programs that help women and families. I can be against unjustly killing human beings at the same time. 

But sometimes it does result in a woman being forced to undergo a birth that will kill them. The woman in Ireland was refused care that would save her life because her dying fetus still had a heartbeat. No one believed the pregnancy was viable. But the heart was still beating so the mother was denied the care could have saved her. She died. 

It is sometimes an either/or issue. 

20 minutes ago, MercyA said:

No. I am saying every human being has the right to life. Period. The mother. The baby. Neither is subordinate. 

No one should have the "right" to decide to kill another human being.

But that human being is inside of the mother's body. This is why every religion of the past grappled with this issue. Everyone sees that there's a difference between a baby (using your term) inside of the womb and outside of the womb. There are always hard and fast lines by necessity. Like my 11 YO DD can't get vaccinated even though she's the same size as a 12 YO. A hard and fast line is pre-birth and after birth. 

How can you say that the mother's rights are subordinate when you are going to deny her the right to make medical decisions for herself? 

You are forcing her to remain pregnant. Why is that allowed unless her rights are less than the baby's? Be honest about that part, at least. 

ETA, that honesty is critical if you want to convert people on the outside. We all see that the rights of women will be limited if there is legalized abortion. You can throw money at us and do all kinds of things to lessen the burden but it won't remove the burden entirely. Admit that you think it's worth it to restrict our rights. 

It's not completely ridiculous. Society may have an interest in it. And most pro-life people acknowledge that a fetus is more than a clump of cells. Many believe that it is a life. 

 

Edited by Ordinary Shoes
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

C'mon. 

It affects females. Can we at least use that instead of the dehumanising 'person with uterus'?

This is a women's rights issue.

Talk about being dehuanised by the right and the left. 

 

 

There are people who have uteruses who are not female.  And there are people like me, who are female, who do not have a uterus.  

Of course it is a women's rights issue, but the way THIS LAW is written does not limit the danger to just women.  Men are at risk of being sued for "assisting in an abortion" by driving someone, giving them money that is used for paying for one, having a conversation, etc.

And remember that nothing has to be proved.  Even if you can prove you did not (and proving a negative is an almost impossibility), you are still liable for all the court costs and time.  

Edited by Terabith
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Yes, I also was going to reference this study. The Guttmacher Institute was the research arm of Planned Parenthood and now is an independent pro-choice group.

Florida records the reason for every abortion and their figures are much the same. From 2018:

.01%    The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
.14%    The woman was raped
.27%    The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
1.0%    There was a serious fetal abnormality
1.48%    The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
1.67%    The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
20.0%    The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
75.4%    No reason (elective)

“No reason” Seriously?!? People buy into that?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Terabith said:

There are people who have uteruses who are not female.  And there are people like me, who are female, who do not have a uterus.  

Of course it is a women's rights issue, but the way THIS LAW is written does not limit the danger to just women.  Men are at risk of being sued for "assisting in an abortion" by driving someone, giving them money that is used for paying for one, having a conversation, etc.

And remember that nothing has to be proved.  Even if you can prove you did not (and proving a negative is an almost impossibility), you are still liable for all the court costs and time.  

No.

Having a uterus + being pregnant = being a female person. 

This issue affects girls, women, NB females and transmen of reproductive age.

The thing linking these groups? They are all female people. 

The law disproportionately affects women. Female bodies are the battleground. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bookbard said:

Cannot believe people are suggesting women should die rather than end a pregnancy. This is all whipped up by men, in order to extend their own power. You're playing right into their hands by supporting them, and you know what? You think you'll be safe because YOU won't have an abortion. Eventually, they'll come after you, too, and you'll wish you stopped them while you could. 

Who has said this?

The idea that any man has told me what to think about this is laughable. I have researched and thought for many years to arrive firmly at the position I hold now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

So you accused me of being ridiculous when I said I know prolifers who do not believe the mother's life is of value, and then you turn right around and prove I am right. Your own statement is very telling. The 2nd ER doc could have waited and hoped for a miracle too. And I would be dead. The 99% percent future was I would eventually hemorrhage to death. But that wasn't 100% guaranteed. So I guess in your book that makes me a killer.

I was responding to someone's post who said that someone may commit suicide in the future if they give birth rather than aborting. That was the "future risk" to which I was referring. Obviously if someone is in imminent physical danger of losing their life, they should receive life saving treatment. I don't know how many times I need to say that in this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend from college found out she had stage 3C breast cancer while she was pregnant.  She chose to continue the pregnancy and forego treatment until after delivery.  And it turned out well for her.  But it should have been her choice.  

Under this law, she would not have that choice.  Under this law, nobody is going to be willing to treat the cancer while she is still pregnant.  It simply isn't safe for doctors to do that, even if the death of the child was an unavoidable consequence of her medical treatment.  

Honestly, I suspect fewer and fewer doctors are going to be willing to practice in Texas as a consequence of this law.  Not just OBs, but anyone who might come into contact with someone who MIGHT be pregnant, because so many medical treatments could be hazardous to the baby or could result in being accused of aiding and abetting an abortion because of having private conversations with women.  

  • Like 9
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

I was responding to someone's post who said that someone may commit suicide in the future if they give birth rather than aborting. That was the "future risk" to which I was referring. Obviously if someone is in imminent physical danger of losing their life, they should receive life saving treatment. I don't know how many times I need to say that in this thread.

I know it seems like people are jumping on you but we know that women have died when abortion is illegal. People who advocate for making abortion illegal have to grapple with that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

More like "none of your business!" 

Besides, who cares? If we think women are capable of making their own choices, we shouldn't care what reason they give. 

Absolutely. But using that phrasing is yet another weapon. Because it sounds like deciding to order take out, just because. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I know it seems like people are jumping on you but we know that women have died when abortion is illegal. People who advocate for making abortion illegal have to grapple with that. 

Yes.

It's not hypothetical when you reach back into family histories of married women who had kids, loved them dearly, and were so desperate during their next pregnancy that the only way out was an illegal abortion.  And they died because that was their only option besides destitution and suffering.

It's not hypothetical.  It's quiet remembrance.

  • Like 15
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

If you are pro-life, meaning that you support using the power of the state to compel women to remain pregnant, then own it. Admit that you think that a pregnant women's rights can be limited. 

Sure. I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill another human being, unless their own life is in imminent physical danger. I do think abortion should be illegal. I own it without apology.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Sure. I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill another human being, unless their own life is in imminent physical danger. I do think abortion should be illegal. I own it without apology.

The sheer misery this would introduce into the world...I don't know how you can't see it. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Yes.

It's not hypothetical when you reach back into family histories of married women who had kids, loved them dearly, and were so desperate during their next pregnancy that the only way out was an illegal abortion.  And they died because that was their only option besides destitution and suffering.

It's not hypothetical.  It's quiet remembrance.

Yes. My great grandmother died due to a botched illegal abortion when my grandmother was nine. My great grandma reportedly begged her husband to not have more kids because she physically and mentally couldn’t handle it and he insisted (can’t even imagine what she lived through). My grandmother’s life for years after that was absolutely awful and she married at 19 to get away. I hate the idea of abortion but understand why it needs to remain legal.

Edited by Joker2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

First, people here are being respectful and using the term "pro-life." Why can't you be equally respectful and use the term "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortionist." Should we escalate to "forced birthers" instead of "pro-life?" 

Some people are being respectful. Others are not. That terms has been used multiple times in this thread. Out of courtesy, I call pro-choice people their preferred term, even though I believe they absolutely support those who take all future choices away from unborn human beings and force death upon them.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Some people are being respectful. Others are not. That terms has been used multiple times in this thread. Out of courtesy, I call pro-choice people their preferred term, even though I believe they absolutely take all future choices away from unborn human beings and force death upon them.

I force death upon the unborn? *I* do??? That’s what you believe. (?) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

Yes. My great grandmother died due to a botched illegal abortion when my grandmother was nine. My great grandma reportedly begged her husband to not have more kids because she physically and mentally couldn’t handle it and he insisted (can’t even imagine what she lived through). My grandmother’s life for years after that was absolutely awful and she married at 19 to get away. I hate the idea of abortion but understand why it needs to remain legal.

It should be noted that some of the pro-life people on this thread don't believe in birth control either. I'm not sure if they think it should be illegal. 

My grandmother had 5 kids. She told us all of her female grandchildren to use birth control. 

How are women supposed to have equality when they can't control their reproduction? There is no way I could have had the career I did if I had no control over when I got pregnant. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How are women supposed to have equality when they can't control their reproduction? There is no way I could have had the career I did if I had no control over when I got pregnant

I don’t even have a career. I just get pregnant like I breathe. Even when I’ve used controls. The thought of going “goalie free” by force or coercion is terrifying. While I enjoy other people’s giant families, I’d probably end up like a Duggar and then institutionalized or dead. It’s not for me.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Terabith said:

There are people who have uteruses who are not female.  And there are people like me, who are female, who do not have a uterus.  

Of course it is a women's rights issue, but the way THIS LAW is written does not limit the danger to just women.  Men are at risk of being sued for "assisting in an abortion" by driving someone, giving them money that is used for paying for one, having a conversation, etc.

And remember that nothing has to be proved.  Even if you can prove you did not (and proving a negative is an almost impossibility), you are still liable for all the court costs and time.  

I guess I feel like can't we say that this is about women? (I know that men be sued.) 

This is an attack on us. Can't we say it's about females and not "people who have uteruses?" 

This law is going to kill women. It's going to harm their fertility, their careers, their relationships, their education, etc. 

Can't we say that it's an attack on females and not "people with uteruses?" 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MercyA said:

To your first question, no. I don't believe pregnancy is just a "medical condition." There is another human being involved.

I have never said that anyone should be forced to undergo birth that will kill them. I have said that in those cases, women should receive necessary treatment. Doctors should attempt to save both patients, but if that is not possible, sometimes the tragic death of the child may result. It should never be intended. 

We haven't yet succeeded in completely eliminating any type of crime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw things that take the lives of other human beings. 

This is not an "either / or" issue. I am all for programs that help women and families. I can be against unjustly killing human beings at the same time. 

So do you believe an abortion can be justified homicide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

But sometimes it does result in a woman being forced to undergo a birth that will kill them. The woman in Ireland was refused care that would save her life because her dying fetus still had a heartbeat. No one believed the pregnancy was viable. But the heart was still beating so the mother was denied the care could have saved her. She died.

That poor woman died from an untreated infection. She had given urine samples that weren't tested in a timely manner and she wasn't given the correct antibiotics. She died from sepsis, not from her pregnancy or from the lack of an abortion. It was absolutely horrible negligence. Her death has been unfortunately politicized. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

That poor woman died from an untreated infection. She had given urine samples that weren't tested in a timely manner and she wasn't given the correct antibiotics. She died from sepsis, not from her pregnancy or from the lack of an abortion. It was absolutely horrible negligence. Her death has been unfortunately politicized. 

This is not the conclusion the national inquiry came to. It specifically cited their laws as a contributing factor in her death. The medical professionals involved felt paralyzed to act by the presence of a heartbeat. Heartbeat=life, same as the Texas legislation.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

“No reason” Seriously?!? People buy into that?

That is unfortunate wording. It just means the abortion was elective and not due to one of the other reasons given. I will edit that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

The liability insurance in order to practice will probably go through the roof. And the thing is, it isn't just OB's, it is the trauma doctor, paramedics attending a pregnant woman, the intake nurse at the hospital, everyone involved on mere suspicion. I would not practice in that state. There would be no way to follow best medical practice and not end up sued.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/research/maternity-care-deserts-report.aspx

Check this map. 

I feel like I've been living under a rock to not realize this.   Looking at those maps, the vast areas with no maternal healthcare.   It's crazy.   

I realize in some places it may be population density = more doctors but those vast areas with ZERO doctors?  Crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I guess I feel like can't we say that this is about women? (I know that men be sued.) 

This is an attack on us. Can't we say it's about females and not "people who have uteruses?" 

This law is going to kill women. It's going to harm their fertility, their careers, their relationships, their education, etc. 

Can't we say that it's an attack on females and not "people with uteruses?" 

 

I have no problem with someone saying this is about females.  I'm not criticizing anyone else's terminology.  

I have a non-binary child with a uterus, who would be upset at being called female, so in MY PERSONAL LANGUAGE, I try to at least alternate saying women with saying "person with a uterus."  

Also, as someone who had a hysterectomy and who is very sad that I can't get pregnant because honestly, I would have loved to have another child, I feel like saying "person with a uterus" is more precise, because I am not in the position of being someone who could get pregnant.  I feel like I do not share that vulnerability, even though I am female, and I do not want to imply that I do.  

But I'm not criticizing anyone's language here.  I'm just using alternative phrasing for reasons of my own, for reasons that are personal to my family.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How can you say that the mother's rights are subordinate when you are going to deny her the right to make medical decisions for herself? 

You are forcing her to remain pregnant. Why is that allowed unless her rights are less than the baby's? Be honest about that part, at least. 

ETA, that honesty is critical if you want to convert people on the outside. We all see that the rights of women will be limited if there is legalized abortion. You can throw money at us and do all kinds of things to lessen the burden but it won't remove the burden entirely. Admit that you think it's worth it to restrict our rights. 

Ordinary Shoes, no disrespect intended whatsoever, but I feel like you keep asking me to repeat myself. So, one more time 😉 :

YES, I think a person should be denied the right to kill another human being. If that makes her subordinate to her child, or makes her have fewer rights, so does outlawing her "right" to abuse her child outside the womb. 

YES, I think people's right to kill other human beings should be restricted.

I don't think I've been anything but honest in this thread. Sorry if I've been unclear on any point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

 

Ordinary Shoes, no disrespect intended whatsoever, but I feel like you keep asking me to repeat myself. So, one more time 😉 :

YES, I think a person should be denied the right to kill another human being. If that makes her subordinate to her child, or makes her have fewer rights, so does outlawing her "right" to abuse her child outside the womb. 

YES, I think people's right to kill other human beings should be restricted.

I don't think I've been anything but honest in this thread. Sorry if I've been unclear on any point.

 

I don't think I wrote another post once you made it clear last time. It so, I apologize. 

I'm glad that you've been honest that you believe that the rights of a pregnant woman are subordinate to the baby's rights. 

However, I take issue with your comparing the limitation of her rights during pregnancy to a limitation on her rights to abuse her born child. I think that's inappropriate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I know it seems like people are jumping on you but we know that women have died when abortion is illegal. People who advocate for making abortion illegal have to grapple with that. 

It's fine; I can take it. 😉

Yes, some women died from illegal abortions, and some women have died from legal abortions. We are under no obligation as a society to make it safer for one person to take another person's life.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

It's fine; I can take it. 😉

Yes, some women died from illegal abortions, and some women have died from legal abortions. We are under no obligation as a society to make it safer for one person to take another person's life.

A foetus is not a person. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I force death upon the unborn? *I* do??? That’s what you believe. (?) 

Carrie, again I was not as careful as I should have been with my phrasing. I am trying to reply quickly to what seems like about a million people quoting me at once. Will edit for clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MercyA said:

That is unfortunate wording. It just means the abortion was elective and not due to one of the other reasons given. I will edit that. 

Elective is such a vague term. 
 

A couple examples: I had a hysterectomy at 27. I was newly married. It was classified as “elective.” But no doctor would perform a hysterectomy on someone at that age without good, solid reason. It was still classified as elective. I mean, I’d had 5 surgeries at that point and a year on a semi-experimental drug, and countless attempts at medical intervention. I could conceivably have survived longer, but my life was effectively nothing but the four walls of a bedroom, and an emergency surgery was looming. DH and I felt it was safer and saner to plan for it, rather than deal with it when we were not able to choose my surgeon and facility.

(Oh, oddly, I could also add that my condition was first diagnosed and kindly, gently treated by the only place I could afford healthcare. Planned Parenthood. Of course, they didn’t do the surgeries or my hysterectomy! Those came years later. But they did help me find and apply for affordable student medical insurance, and referred me to one of that state’s most wonderful GYN surgeons. I never used their other services, but they were my only source for annuals for the first four years I was in college.

Later, I had an “elective” gall bladder removal. It was called elective because we knew that it was going to become an emergency situation, and I was advised to plan for it and choose my surgeon rather than take my chances with whichever surgeon was in the ER on the night it finally became an emergency.

So, really, “elective” doesn’t necessarily mean someone chose a procedure without medical reason. It can also mean they knew there would be an emergency soon and planned accordingly to minimize the impact on their family, or something else.

I know you still don’t think it’s ok, I just wanted to say that “elective” doesn’t necessarily mean there’s not a medical reason. I think sometimes people misunderstand that.

Edited by Spryte
ETA you probably knew this, but perhaps someone else did not.
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

A foetus is not a person. 

 

Agreed. But I was trying to confirm (or not) the belief being expressed, as it was expressed. 
I = pro choice person.  
Unborn death = what I’m being accused of doing. Not MY belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

This is not the conclusion the national inquiry came to. It specifically cited their laws as a contributing factor in her death. The medical professionals involved felt paralyzed to act by the presence of a heartbeat. Heartbeat=life, same as the Texas legislation.

There is no reason they couldn't have tested her samples in a timely manner and given her antibiotics in a timely manner, pregnant or not. It likely would have saved her. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...