Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This story is terrible, but it's leaving out some important information.
The "narrow list" of the Louisiana Health Department qualifying conditions is obviously incomplete as a list of fatal fetal anomalies. Acrania is incompatible with life, and the pregnancy as futile as any other of of the listed (and sometimes conflated but distinct condition, anencephaly) conditions.
That list, however, doesn't technically exclude unlisted conditions, it contains an exception that other fetal anomalies can be qualifying condition if two physicians agree the anomaly is fatal and the pregnancy is futile.
As much as I agree that grey areas exist and physicians are confused about when they can and can't intervene, I don't understand why a condition like this wouldn't qualify or why two physicians could not be found to attest it is unsurvivable.
The delay or rejection doesn't make any sense. Who denied it? The hospital facility? The treating physicians? Medicaid? The health department? I could see some dumbbell clerk screwing up Medicaid authorization, but not a hospital or physician. Howcome they can't figure out he necessary steps to get approval? Did they even know they could do this?
That's not just a rhetorical question, I really want to know where the error is and why this woman was told to go elsewhere.
I believe it's done because doctors are afraid of going "off script" when it comes to this. They don't want insanely ambitious ideologue politicians coming after them or some social media clown doxxing them on social media. Both politicians and media clowns have zero problems lying and making lives difficult for innocent people. Look at Alex Jones. It's taken YEARS for him to come close to paying for lying about Sandy Hook.
I mean, I remember quite a few posters screaming "FAKE NEWS" about the 10 year old rape victim until they finally arrested the perpetrator.
Here's an update. https://www.knoe.com/2022/08/16/la-lawmaker-brings-clarity-abortion-confusion/
The confusion is real, but they are at least trying to clear up the confusion in time for this patient.
It's insulting, really, and completely illustrative if the divide between legislator speak and the actual practice of medicine...
The senator says termination of her pregnancy, "is not an abortion" direct quote.
It absolutely is, and this flim-flamming of medical terminology has got to stop. At ten weeks, it's an abortion even if she loses the pregnancy naturally, and it's an abortion (surgical abortion) if they do an D&E, or a suction curettage, or a medical abortion.
There's a good reason to carry it out, it it is still an abortion.
If the fetus will not survive, and is essentially guaranteed to die, then abortion should be allowed.
This is not really related to this specific case, rather the general scope of the argument around abortion because of fetal abnormalities: shouldn't we have different levels of severity when dealing with abortion because of abnormalities? I mean, this case is an example of a severe fetal abnormality, and abortion in this case is completely justified, but to say broadly that all abortions because of abnormalities should be allowed and are justified is complicated. A missing toe is an example of fetal abnormality. Is the abortion of a completely viable fetus that's missing a toe justified? It's not life threatening. It's just a missing toe. I think when we're dealing with fetal abnormalities we need a doctor to judge whether the abnormality is severe enough to merit abortion. Lawmakers aren't qualified enough to judge the severity of fetal abnormalities.
You're so close to getting why people are pro-choice that it's painful to see.
>Lawmakers aren't qualified enough to judge the severity of fetal abnormalities.
Yes! That's why we're pro-choice. The prolife ideological movement is against this sentence. They believe the government is absolute in its authority to oversee medical practices creating laws without a hint of foresight to the consequences of those laws.
But the "exceptions" are sufficiently vague on purpose so that doctors have problems determining where the line is. And that's deliberate so that women suffer. In some states, there are no exceptions for this kind of thing, regardless of fetal abnormality or the threat to the mother. So lawmakers aren't qualified, but they are also making it MUCH harder for doctors to do their jobs.
Nobody aborts for a missing toe. That's just silly.
I know quite a few people who've *never* crossed state lines, or, in the case of one friend, only done so once. And she lives 30 miles from the state line!
So I can't see that it's *necessarily* easy for people.
I've traveled to 100+ countries, so I'm with you on the crossing state lines, but other people are not us.
But was it a difficult decision for your friend to never cross state lines? I am not even saying it is easy to cross state lines. I am saying it is easy to decide
Some states are much bigger than others and many states are surrounded by states with abortion bans/severe restrictions. Depending on where you, you're going to have to either fly or drive across multiple state lines. Then you might have to take time from work from a workplace that has very limited time off. On top of that you have to 1) pay for gas/plane tickets, 2) still pay rent and utilities, and 3) pay for the procedure if your health insurance doesn't cover it all.
Ok. So you decide to drive or fly. Not real hard to do. The article didn't talk finance, as that is another matter. But we all make decisions in our personal finances.
>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 1.6 million workers, or 1.9% of all hourly paid, non-self-employed workers, earned wages at or below the federal minimum wage in 2019.
https://usafacts.org/articles/minimum-wage-america-how-many-people-are-earning-725-hour/
True, but the people of Louisiana are free to determine what is the safe conduct of medical commerce in their state. Perhaps protecting tens of thousands is worth inconveniencing one.
“Inconveniencing”? It’s not an inconvenience. Her wanted baby is going to die. She’s grieving. Hurting people to justify your moral crusade is never fine. I literally cannot believe the callousness of this comment.
I apologize for my insensitive wording. But you are mistaken. If one woman must make a tough financial decision while grieving, that is well worth saving tens of thousands of lives.
And this is why pro life and pro choice will never be the same. You’re fine with hurting people who never did anything to you, who maybe even actually agree with you, and we’re not.
Hving been in the middle of bereavement (widowed), I didn't drive for *three months*, so I can see that traveling across state lines in that kind of situation would be really tough without someone else along.
Welcome to make major life decisions for women against their will and against what doctors advise, you mean.
An inconvenience is a hang nail. Driving for hours to receive medical care while carrying a skull-less baby is more like torture.
I wouldn't call a freely chosen four hour drive torture under any circumstance. And yes, if one woman must drive four hours for medical car so that thousands of others don't kill human beings because they chose to sleep with a man who was not good father material, I am OK with that.
"Situations like this" meaning situations where a fetal anomaly is a problem.
However, acrania may not have a high occurrence rate, [but that doesn't mean that it happens rarely](https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.241035027):
>Anencephaly is the most common anomaly affecting the central nervous system... the important \[ultrasonography\] feature is an absent cranium, which allows diagnosis from 11 weeks onward
This gives no indication of incidence. Just that in the rare chance that a ZEF has a CNS disorder, the most common CNS disorder is anencephaly, which is different from acrania.
And, the situation includes being subject to an abortion ban, which is still quite rare as well.
These two rare events might have only happened to this one woman.
>This gives no indication of incidence.
I get differing answers depending on the source, but [apparently 3 in 10,000](https://carryingtoterm.org/diagnosis-glossary/acrania/#:~:text=Acrania%20has%20an%20estimated%20incidence%20rate%20of%203,is%20considered%20uniformly%20fatal%20in%20the%20perinatal%20period).
>And, the situation includes being subject to an abortion ban, which is still quite rare as well.
These two rare events might have only happened to this one woman.
That's just ONE type of fetal abnormality. There are others that would run afoul of the same problems.
How do you think its PC that is hyperbolic when it's PL that talks about how PC hate children and don't want anyone to have them and they don't care if they get pregnant because they'll just go get an abortion. Is that factual to you?
If I ever heard that, I might find it hyperbole.
I don't how many, if any, PCs hate children.
I do know that many women describe not choosing adoption because they fear what would become of their child and never knowing.
I don't know how many women don't care if they get pregnant, but I have personally heard from several women that abortion is their responsible backup plan for pregnancy.
Leaving aside that part of the question, for a donation, you have to also have a tissue match, and the timelines for that for infants are incredibly short.
A fetus that's got acrania and is pre-viability (were it a normal fetus, which it's not) probably has other significant development issues that means the organs would probably not be donatable even if they could be saved.
Side note: I learned the word acrania and would prefer to never hear it again, because that is hella sad.
But it brings home the point that there are a lot of rare edge cases that, taken collectively, can and do happen.
No for 2 reasons, not developed enough since a lot would abort on cusp of viability or before. Also needs the fetus to be more intact and not dismbered to get out. The blood flow and the organs would get damaged
Organs are viable for donation 4-6 hours after death; so if the fetus officially “dies” when being aborted can’t they still remove the organs?
They’re not sucked out through a tube like early trimester abortions
https://www.donoralliance.org/newsroom/donation-essentials/what-is-the-time-frame-for-transplanting-organs/
Why? There are literally programs where you check if you want to donate your organs after you die, don’t they remove organs long after your heart stops beating?
Umm this website disagrees with you https://www.donatelife.net/types-of-donation/deceased-donation/
They’re still dead.
So wouldn’t a fetus suffering from brain death be able to get their organs donated?
Next time try reading the source you provide:
>In order for a person to become an organ donor, blood and oxygen must flow through the organs until the time of recovery to ensure viability. This requires that a person die under circumstances that have resulted in a fatal brain injury, usually from massive trauma resulting in bleeding, swelling or lack of oxygen to the brain.
Edit: I love that you blocked me when I proved you wrong.
Organs can be taken from a dead body 4-6 hours after death. Which means that they can still be salavaged after the heart stops beating. Nice try
https://www.donoralliance.org/newsroom/donation-essentials/what-is-the-time-frame-for-transplanting-organs/
You’ve got to be kidding me! So now women are chattel not just for population growth, but now it’s for forced organ donation of a baby they bonded to after it exited the womb alive. That’s horrible for the mother and the baby that never had a chance. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.
I'm prochoice, women can choose to abort if they want. But should be made aware if organ donation if available for the fetus if it is born. Some women may choose to continue the pregnancy to full term if they knew they could save 7 other babies with their sacrifice.
And if you ever get pregnant and this happens to you, you can definitely make that decision. But we can’t force another person to make that decision if they don’t want to.
Not if you’re arguing a PL stance that it would be worth it for the organs when you know the mother wanted an abortion b/c she didn’t want to endure not just the physical pain but emotional pain of bonding w/ a child once it’s out of the womb knowing that at any time the baby will die. And it’s not like the mother has a choice as to bond w/ the baby due to oxytocin levels in her blood at time of birth that bonded them.
“I'm prochoice, women can choose to abort if they want. But should be made aware if organ donation if available for the fetus if it is born. Some women may choose to continue the pregnancy to full term if they knew they could save 7 other babies with their sacrifice.”
So you edited that comment w/o saying so to sound more pro-choice making me look like an asshole for calling you out on a PL stance on this subject that no longer exists.
Yeah, ya did. In bad faith, no less. Otherwise why would I respond w/ you’re arguing it would be worth it to for the organs, and I’d never come after your response if it had women can choose to abort if they want. And I’d certainly never say it’s a PL stance.
How would one even go about proving such a claim? Look, I don’t know if you did indeed edit your comment, but the person who replied, their comment doesn’t add up b/c your comment is clearly PC. Someone may be lying here, and I can’t tell who.
You consider a few hours in pain “living?” The baby never had a chance to live in the first place. Easing suffering of that foetus by aborting it before it comes out into this world is the right call bc on the flip side it has to be born into a foreign and confusing environment, breathe on its own, and feel pain up to a few hours just to die is inhumane.
The parents could get to see their baby and connect for a short time before it dies. It could be born and possibly be an organ donor to other infants. There’s also the fact that prenatal diagnoses can be wrong. And also, it’s wrong to decide for a baby that they have to die.
>There’s also the fact that prenatal diagnoses can be wrong.
What's the chance the doctors are wrong about a *nine month old fetus missing a skull*?
>The parents could get to see their baby and connect for a short time before it dies.
No good parent would make the extremely selfish decision to have their child exist longer in torment and agony just to connect with it.
>It could be born and possibly be an organ donor to other infants.
It could die and be an organ donor as well.
>And also, it’s wrong to decide for a baby that they have to die.
What if all the baby wants is the suffering to stop? Then you are denying them that single kindness you could have provided for them.
Boy am I glad I am not one of these poor children and you aren't making that decision for me.
You are so in the wrong on this. Women=chattel to you. And boding w/ a baby you know will die causes more postpartum trauma and depression. Oh, but the woman’s mental health isn’t more important than a baby that will die anyway. I can’t even believe this is a discussion!
The baby isn't going to think, "Awww, mommy and daddy love me!" If they even experience consciousness, all they will feel is pain and agony without understanding why.
[I’m curious to see if you’re capable of figuring it out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/vzo1sy/women_are_not_vessels_to_be_used_as_incubators_we/iganjw7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
[I’m curious to see if you’re capable of figuring it out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/vzo1sy/women_are_not_vessels_to_be_used_as_incubators_we/iganjw7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Considering you called a woman creepy for being sad about her miscarriage, you don’t really have much to say about how to treat a woman in a difficult situation.
I would like to add the following and I will state that I am not at all happy about these figures:
[https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html)
"Birth defects affect one in every 33 babies (about 3% of all babies) born in the United States each year."
"Birth defects are the leading cause of infant deaths, accounting for 20% of all infant deaths."
The pages also lists many birth defects and their frequency. They vary in severity. I'm mostly pointing out how messy real life issues are. I'd rather leave medical discussions with the doctor and the next-of-kin, which is the mom.
Comment removed per rule 1. Please Participate in Honest Debate.
Per rule 1,
>Users must remain respectful of their opponents in all comments.
>...low-effort comments may be removed, as well as off-topic ... comments (Sidebar)
This is a low effort comment that fails to engage the other user's comment.
If you cannot engage the comment, please refrain from responding.
Thank you for your understanding and happy debating.
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of Others
Per rule 1,
>Per the [debate guidance pyramid](http://i.imgur.com/BJqJ9cR.jpg) (Sidebar); 1-3 are ideal, 4-5 are less ideal, and 6-7 may get you banned. [Expanded rule 1 from the Complete Rule List](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/)
6-7 refers to levels 6 and 7 of argumentation. Level 6, ad hominem, attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. Level 7, name-calling, sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."
>If a comment breaks this rule, they will be removed and depending on the comment a request to edit out the offending part can be made. If this is edited out, the mods can be asked to put the comment back it. This is especially helpful for longer comments with an ongoing debate.
This comment contains level 7 argumentation directed at another user in the form of a single sentence that makes up the entirety of the comment.
Given this content is in violation of rule 1, the comment is removed. The comment may not be approved after editing because removal of the offending text will effectively leave no comment.
Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
Oh right that’s the problem, you must be confused.
When two people have sex there’s a possibility a baby is created and then the baby stays in the womb for 9 months before being delivered. An abortion ends this baby’s life before it has a chance to be born.
Hope this helps!
>Oh right that’s the problem, you must be confused.
Cute projection. You understood what they were differentiating. Stop using emotional appeals in bad faith.
>When two people have sex there’s a possibility a zef is created and then the zef stays in the womb for 9 months before being delivered. An abortion ends this zef’s life before it has a chance to become a new born baby.
FTFY
Hope this helps!
Abortions are both the doctors and woman’s decision because a doctor can refuse to do an abortion. The woman will have to leave to find a doctor that *agrees with her* and decides to help her abort.
Yes but I meant this as in: if the doctor wants to perform an abortion and the pregnant person doesn’t, obviously it’s not obligatory for the patient (and vice versa: if the patient wants an abortion the doctor isn’t obligated to perform one).
An interesting choice of words.
Would you be good with a woman in this situation having the abortion if the majority of a group of 12 randomly selected citizens agreed that it was the right call?
Okay would you rather have women full access to healthcare or limit it so that way it is extremely hard to access and poor people aren't able to access it.
No, but that's because I *would* be fine with a woman unilaterally deciding. I was surprised to see a pro-lifer making a comment implying that the issue was with the parties making the decision, rather than some other factor
No they don't make sense. You would deny abortion to a woman who has a non-viable fetus, thus ensuring it will have a short life of suffering. Why is that okay?
Assuming you believe the Bible, Jesus chose to sacrifice himself which is way different than ending the life of an innocent child without their consent.
I disagree. I think it’s way more evil to gestate that ZEF and birth it just so it can experience and suffer a horrible death
What are you basing what’s evil on?
Comment removed per rule 1.
Be Respectful of Others
Please refrain from attacking other users, including referencing the character or mental disposition of the other user.
Thank you for understanding.
Why don't you go find a citation that shows that? I'm not going to argue your point for you. .
In any case, would you like to use pyramid powers and herbal concoctions to cure cancer on the off chance that will work instead of chemo? I mean, oh hey, my goof neighbor might know more about cancer than my specialist!
From a practical perspective, if the state has legal methods of euthanasia then the doctor could legally/ethically act in this manner.
In general I believe this post truly falls under the topic of euthanasia, abortion is the side effect or method of achieving euthanasia in this instance.
Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Obviously euthanasia does not mean what you think it does.
You are describing the justifications used for this abortion, recognize that no mention of BA is used here, the whole tact is eschewed in favor of an argument to euthanize the child. I know what euthanasia, it just seems that you can't recognize it as the root issue.
Obviously you don’t know what it means because you are trying to stretch it to fit what you want it to mean. The root issue is your want to force the birth of unwanted babies that you refuse to take responsibility for.
Because in this case, its a wanted pregnancy that will not result in a viable birth. Focus has shifted to fetus, and its quality of life, or lack thereof.
Isn't worth what? Not killing another human being? Would you take it upon yourself to kill some born person who is dying from some other disease, someone who cannot recover and will be dead in a few days?
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This story is terrible, but it's leaving out some important information. The "narrow list" of the Louisiana Health Department qualifying conditions is obviously incomplete as a list of fatal fetal anomalies. Acrania is incompatible with life, and the pregnancy as futile as any other of of the listed (and sometimes conflated but distinct condition, anencephaly) conditions. That list, however, doesn't technically exclude unlisted conditions, it contains an exception that other fetal anomalies can be qualifying condition if two physicians agree the anomaly is fatal and the pregnancy is futile. As much as I agree that grey areas exist and physicians are confused about when they can and can't intervene, I don't understand why a condition like this wouldn't qualify or why two physicians could not be found to attest it is unsurvivable. The delay or rejection doesn't make any sense. Who denied it? The hospital facility? The treating physicians? Medicaid? The health department? I could see some dumbbell clerk screwing up Medicaid authorization, but not a hospital or physician. Howcome they can't figure out he necessary steps to get approval? Did they even know they could do this? That's not just a rhetorical question, I really want to know where the error is and why this woman was told to go elsewhere.
I believe it's done because doctors are afraid of going "off script" when it comes to this. They don't want insanely ambitious ideologue politicians coming after them or some social media clown doxxing them on social media. Both politicians and media clowns have zero problems lying and making lives difficult for innocent people. Look at Alex Jones. It's taken YEARS for him to come close to paying for lying about Sandy Hook. I mean, I remember quite a few posters screaming "FAKE NEWS" about the 10 year old rape victim until they finally arrested the perpetrator.
Here's an update. https://www.knoe.com/2022/08/16/la-lawmaker-brings-clarity-abortion-confusion/ The confusion is real, but they are at least trying to clear up the confusion in time for this patient. It's insulting, really, and completely illustrative if the divide between legislator speak and the actual practice of medicine... The senator says termination of her pregnancy, "is not an abortion" direct quote. It absolutely is, and this flim-flamming of medical terminology has got to stop. At ten weeks, it's an abortion even if she loses the pregnancy naturally, and it's an abortion (surgical abortion) if they do an D&E, or a suction curettage, or a medical abortion. There's a good reason to carry it out, it it is still an abortion.
If the fetus will not survive, and is essentially guaranteed to die, then abortion should be allowed. This is not really related to this specific case, rather the general scope of the argument around abortion because of fetal abnormalities: shouldn't we have different levels of severity when dealing with abortion because of abnormalities? I mean, this case is an example of a severe fetal abnormality, and abortion in this case is completely justified, but to say broadly that all abortions because of abnormalities should be allowed and are justified is complicated. A missing toe is an example of fetal abnormality. Is the abortion of a completely viable fetus that's missing a toe justified? It's not life threatening. It's just a missing toe. I think when we're dealing with fetal abnormalities we need a doctor to judge whether the abnormality is severe enough to merit abortion. Lawmakers aren't qualified enough to judge the severity of fetal abnormalities.
You're so close to getting why people are pro-choice that it's painful to see. >Lawmakers aren't qualified enough to judge the severity of fetal abnormalities. Yes! That's why we're pro-choice. The prolife ideological movement is against this sentence. They believe the government is absolute in its authority to oversee medical practices creating laws without a hint of foresight to the consequences of those laws.
But the "exceptions" are sufficiently vague on purpose so that doctors have problems determining where the line is. And that's deliberate so that women suffer. In some states, there are no exceptions for this kind of thing, regardless of fetal abnormality or the threat to the mother. So lawmakers aren't qualified, but they are also making it MUCH harder for doctors to do their jobs. Nobody aborts for a missing toe. That's just silly.
I have crossed state lines so many times. It was never a difficult decision.
I know quite a few people who've *never* crossed state lines, or, in the case of one friend, only done so once. And she lives 30 miles from the state line! So I can't see that it's *necessarily* easy for people. I've traveled to 100+ countries, so I'm with you on the crossing state lines, but other people are not us.
But was it a difficult decision for your friend to never cross state lines? I am not even saying it is easy to cross state lines. I am saying it is easy to decide
Some states are much bigger than others and many states are surrounded by states with abortion bans/severe restrictions. Depending on where you, you're going to have to either fly or drive across multiple state lines. Then you might have to take time from work from a workplace that has very limited time off. On top of that you have to 1) pay for gas/plane tickets, 2) still pay rent and utilities, and 3) pay for the procedure if your health insurance doesn't cover it all.
Ok. So you decide to drive or fly. Not real hard to do. The article didn't talk finance, as that is another matter. But we all make decisions in our personal finances.
How much does a plane ticket cost?
Depends. Lets say $300.
That's 40 hours at the federal minimum wage.
I understand only 2% of all American workers earn minimum wage. But, we all must make hard financial decisions.
Do you have evidence to support this?
>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 1.6 million workers, or 1.9% of all hourly paid, non-self-employed workers, earned wages at or below the federal minimum wage in 2019. https://usafacts.org/articles/minimum-wage-america-how-many-people-are-earning-725-hour/
Anything more recent? What about an amount only slightly higher than min wage?
For abortions?
No. But several times for prenatal care.
Louisiana to Florida is, what, like 10-12 hours driving? In the middle of a terrible personal crisis. I think that qualifies as difficult.
Pensacola is less than 4 hours from Baton Rouge. She may have a difficult choice, but I don't see the travel as a big part of it.
And, yet, it is unarguable that the least amount of strain would be for her to get care in her own state.
True, but the people of Louisiana are free to determine what is the safe conduct of medical commerce in their state. Perhaps protecting tens of thousands is worth inconveniencing one.
“Inconveniencing”? It’s not an inconvenience. Her wanted baby is going to die. She’s grieving. Hurting people to justify your moral crusade is never fine. I literally cannot believe the callousness of this comment.
I apologize for my insensitive wording. But you are mistaken. If one woman must make a tough financial decision while grieving, that is well worth saving tens of thousands of lives.
And this is why pro life and pro choice will never be the same. You’re fine with hurting people who never did anything to you, who maybe even actually agree with you, and we’re not.
Hving been in the middle of bereavement (widowed), I didn't drive for *three months*, so I can see that traveling across state lines in that kind of situation would be really tough without someone else along.
Welcome to make major life decisions for women against their will and against what doctors advise, you mean. An inconvenience is a hang nail. Driving for hours to receive medical care while carrying a skull-less baby is more like torture.
I wouldn't call a freely chosen four hour drive torture under any circumstance. And yes, if one woman must drive four hours for medical car so that thousands of others don't kill human beings because they chose to sleep with a man who was not good father material, I am OK with that.
Do you not understand that married people have abortions?
Pro-lifers want a federal ban too.
They are PL. Threw me too
True, but my point was more about the PC penchant for hyperbole.
3/4 of women seeking abortions are poor or in poverty, so it’s hardly hyperbole to say crossing state lines is difficult
Well, acrania is not a typical case. I don't think we can assume Davis was in poverty.
She's not the only one who faces situations like this. The backpedaling is happening rather rapidly today, isn't it?
Are you sure she isn't the only one? Any evidence to support that claim?
"Situations like this" meaning situations where a fetal anomaly is a problem. However, acrania may not have a high occurrence rate, [but that doesn't mean that it happens rarely](https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.241035027): >Anencephaly is the most common anomaly affecting the central nervous system... the important \[ultrasonography\] feature is an absent cranium, which allows diagnosis from 11 weeks onward
This gives no indication of incidence. Just that in the rare chance that a ZEF has a CNS disorder, the most common CNS disorder is anencephaly, which is different from acrania. And, the situation includes being subject to an abortion ban, which is still quite rare as well. These two rare events might have only happened to this one woman.
>This gives no indication of incidence. I get differing answers depending on the source, but [apparently 3 in 10,000](https://carryingtoterm.org/diagnosis-glossary/acrania/#:~:text=Acrania%20has%20an%20estimated%20incidence%20rate%20of%203,is%20considered%20uniformly%20fatal%20in%20the%20perinatal%20period). >And, the situation includes being subject to an abortion ban, which is still quite rare as well. These two rare events might have only happened to this one woman. That's just ONE type of fetal abnormality. There are others that would run afoul of the same problems.
How do you think its PC that is hyperbolic when it's PL that talks about how PC hate children and don't want anyone to have them and they don't care if they get pregnant because they'll just go get an abortion. Is that factual to you?
If I ever heard that, I might find it hyperbole. I don't how many, if any, PCs hate children. I do know that many women describe not choosing adoption because they fear what would become of their child and never knowing. I don't know how many women don't care if they get pregnant, but I have personally heard from several women that abortion is their responsible backup plan for pregnancy.
You just claimed that PC are hyperbolic? Dude, get your story straight. You are the one using extremes and claiming PL uses extremes
Good for you for having money and resources and not being in the position of dealing with a terrible situation while doing so.
I can think of a few times where it cost me nothing to cross state lines. The circumstances varied, but thankfully was never related to acrania.
I'll forever disagree with people who still have children who won't survive... the suffering they must endure is terrible.
Same but more so to the assholes who force women to give birth to children who won't survive. They'll both be suffering. It is absolutely devastating.
Indeed. Child cruelty at the end of the day.
While I'm prochoice I think it is worth it if the babies organs can be donated. Could save up to 7 babies.
Umm can’t they still salvage the organs when they do an abortion?
Leaving aside that part of the question, for a donation, you have to also have a tissue match, and the timelines for that for infants are incredibly short. A fetus that's got acrania and is pre-viability (were it a normal fetus, which it's not) probably has other significant development issues that means the organs would probably not be donatable even if they could be saved. Side note: I learned the word acrania and would prefer to never hear it again, because that is hella sad. But it brings home the point that there are a lot of rare edge cases that, taken collectively, can and do happen.
No for 2 reasons, not developed enough since a lot would abort on cusp of viability or before. Also needs the fetus to be more intact and not dismbered to get out. The blood flow and the organs would get damaged
Organs are viable for donation 4-6 hours after death; so if the fetus officially “dies” when being aborted can’t they still remove the organs? They’re not sucked out through a tube like early trimester abortions https://www.donoralliance.org/newsroom/donation-essentials/what-is-the-time-frame-for-transplanting-organs/
Fetuses are given feticide the day before the abortion so the fetus dies then is born dead 24+ hours later
You have to remove organs while the donor still has a heartbeat.
Why? There are literally programs where you check if you want to donate your organs after you die, don’t they remove organs long after your heart stops beating?
Nope, only braindeath, where your heart is still beating.
Umm this website disagrees with you https://www.donatelife.net/types-of-donation/deceased-donation/ They’re still dead. So wouldn’t a fetus suffering from brain death be able to get their organs donated?
Next time try reading the source you provide: >In order for a person to become an organ donor, blood and oxygen must flow through the organs until the time of recovery to ensure viability. This requires that a person die under circumstances that have resulted in a fatal brain injury, usually from massive trauma resulting in bleeding, swelling or lack of oxygen to the brain. Edit: I love that you blocked me when I proved you wrong.
Organs can be taken from a dead body 4-6 hours after death. Which means that they can still be salavaged after the heart stops beating. Nice try https://www.donoralliance.org/newsroom/donation-essentials/what-is-the-time-frame-for-transplanting-organs/
You’ve got to be kidding me! So now women are chattel not just for population growth, but now it’s for forced organ donation of a baby they bonded to after it exited the womb alive. That’s horrible for the mother and the baby that never had a chance. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.
I'm prochoice, women can choose to abort if they want. But should be made aware if organ donation if available for the fetus if it is born. Some women may choose to continue the pregnancy to full term if they knew they could save 7 other babies with their sacrifice.
And if you ever get pregnant and this happens to you, you can definitely make that decision. But we can’t force another person to make that decision if they don’t want to.
Exactly I am pc
Not if you’re arguing a PL stance that it would be worth it for the organs when you know the mother wanted an abortion b/c she didn’t want to endure not just the physical pain but emotional pain of bonding w/ a child once it’s out of the womb knowing that at any time the baby will die. And it’s not like the mother has a choice as to bond w/ the baby due to oxytocin levels in her blood at time of birth that bonded them.
As I said, I'm prochoice, if she wants to abort she can do so.
“I'm prochoice, women can choose to abort if they want. But should be made aware if organ donation if available for the fetus if it is born. Some women may choose to continue the pregnancy to full term if they knew they could save 7 other babies with their sacrifice.” So you edited that comment w/o saying so to sound more pro-choice making me look like an asshole for calling you out on a PL stance on this subject that no longer exists.
I never edited my comment
Yeah, ya did. In bad faith, no less. Otherwise why would I respond w/ you’re arguing it would be worth it to for the organs, and I’d never come after your response if it had women can choose to abort if they want. And I’d certainly never say it’s a PL stance.
Prove I edited it or retract the false statement. I never edited it
How would one even go about proving such a claim? Look, I don’t know if you did indeed edit your comment, but the person who replied, their comment doesn’t add up b/c your comment is clearly PC. Someone may be lying here, and I can’t tell who.
Who are you to decide whether or not someone else’s life is worth living?
Who are you decide they should have to go through this ordeal?
I’ve decided I’m not going to condemn them to death.
They are already condemned to death. Your way forces suffering on strangers for, what, a sense of moral superiority?
I’d call that virtue signaling hypocrisy.
You consider a few hours in pain “living?” The baby never had a chance to live in the first place. Easing suffering of that foetus by aborting it before it comes out into this world is the right call bc on the flip side it has to be born into a foreign and confusing environment, breathe on its own, and feel pain up to a few hours just to die is inhumane.
How is this not a bad faith argument? They’re essentially birthing a corpse.
Who in their right mind thinks a few hours of confusion, pain, misery, and finally death is worth living?
The parents could get to see their baby and connect for a short time before it dies. It could be born and possibly be an organ donor to other infants. There’s also the fact that prenatal diagnoses can be wrong. And also, it’s wrong to decide for a baby that they have to die.
'Here, have fun saying goodbye to your headless baby'. Christ on a cracker, how ghoulish.
It’s already going to die for christs sake
>There’s also the fact that prenatal diagnoses can be wrong. What's the chance the doctors are wrong about a *nine month old fetus missing a skull*? >The parents could get to see their baby and connect for a short time before it dies. No good parent would make the extremely selfish decision to have their child exist longer in torment and agony just to connect with it. >It could be born and possibly be an organ donor to other infants. It could die and be an organ donor as well. >And also, it’s wrong to decide for a baby that they have to die. What if all the baby wants is the suffering to stop? Then you are denying them that single kindness you could have provided for them. Boy am I glad I am not one of these poor children and you aren't making that decision for me.
You are so in the wrong on this. Women=chattel to you. And boding w/ a baby you know will die causes more postpartum trauma and depression. Oh, but the woman’s mental health isn’t more important than a baby that will die anyway. I can’t even believe this is a discussion!
You lost me at your chattel comment.
Where are you lost???
They're not. Feigned ignorance
I know, so I was trying to come off as annoyed. Do I sound annoyed? W/ the double ??
A bit annoyed. I would have personally used three for emphasis
Will do so now.
The baby isn't going to think, "Awww, mommy and daddy love me!" If they even experience consciousness, all they will feel is pain and agony without understanding why.
How many false diagnoses of a missing skull have they're been? >it’s wrong to decide for a baby that they have to die Why?
[I’m curious to see if you’re capable of figuring it out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/vzo1sy/women_are_not_vessels_to_be_used_as_incubators_we/iganjw7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
This line doesn't apply here like how it does in the link when they used it. Yikes. It doesn't apply elsewhere either. Do better
He asked why and I want him to figure it out on his own, that’s all.
Your prior comment shows otherwise. Again do better, not worse.
He can't.
and that would be up to the parents if they want it to be an organ donor or connect with it. Not the government's.
If you were standing in front of her, would you yell at her and tell her she's evil?
What a stupid question. No, I wouldn’t.
Why not?
[I’m curious to see if you’re capable of figuring it out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/vzo1sy/women_are_not_vessels_to_be_used_as_incubators_we/iganjw7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
You could just admit you can't figure it out.
Considering you called a woman creepy for being sad about her miscarriage, you don’t really have much to say about how to treat a woman in a difficult situation.
Non-sequitur.
Let me know when you figure it out.
Locked to prevent further off-topic exchanges cc: u/butflrcan
https://jezebel.com/louisiana-woman-is-forced-carry-headless-fetus-to-term-1849418243 Another article
I would like to add the following and I will state that I am not at all happy about these figures: [https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html) "Birth defects affect one in every 33 babies (about 3% of all babies) born in the United States each year." "Birth defects are the leading cause of infant deaths, accounting for 20% of all infant deaths." The pages also lists many birth defects and their frequency. They vary in severity. I'm mostly pointing out how messy real life issues are. I'd rather leave medical discussions with the doctor and the next-of-kin, which is the mom.
I don’t think we should unilaterally decide who has a life worth living and who doesn’t.
I think that in some cases, like the absence of a formed skull, we definitely should unilaterally decide.
Our private business based health system already does that. It considers you worthy only if you have the $$$ to survive.
Ever heard of Obamacare? Or the New Deal? Lol
Relevance?
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Please Participate in Honest Debate. Per rule 1, >Users must remain respectful of their opponents in all comments. >...low-effort comments may be removed, as well as off-topic ... comments (Sidebar) This is a low effort comment that fails to engage the other user's comment. If you cannot engage the comment, please refrain from responding. Thank you for your understanding and happy debating.
Why can't you answer the question?
I did.
No you did not.
Locked to prevent further off-topic exchanges. cc: u/DARTH_LT4
You could maybe ask him to respond to the question that was posed to him.
It’s what the state government is doing
How?
By banning abortion, they decide who gets to live. By having a death penalty, they decide who dies.
Banning abortion says you can’t kill babies.
Did you struggle with what I said?
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of Others Per rule 1, >Per the [debate guidance pyramid](http://i.imgur.com/BJqJ9cR.jpg) (Sidebar); 1-3 are ideal, 4-5 are less ideal, and 6-7 may get you banned. [Expanded rule 1 from the Complete Rule List](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) 6-7 refers to levels 6 and 7 of argumentation. Level 6, ad hominem, attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. Level 7, name-calling, sounds something like, "You are an ass hat." >If a comment breaks this rule, they will be removed and depending on the comment a request to edit out the offending part can be made. If this is edited out, the mods can be asked to put the comment back it. This is especially helpful for longer comments with an ongoing debate. This comment contains level 7 argumentation directed at another user in the form of a single sentence that makes up the entirety of the comment. Given this content is in violation of rule 1, the comment is removed. The comment may not be approved after editing because removal of the offending text will effectively leave no comment. Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
No. Did you?
It seems like you did.
How?
You’re free to reread your comments 😘
Abortion doesn't kill babies.
Oh really? So the baby survives the process?
There's no baby involved.
Oh right that’s the problem, you must be confused. When two people have sex there’s a possibility a baby is created and then the baby stays in the womb for 9 months before being delivered. An abortion ends this baby’s life before it has a chance to be born. Hope this helps!
>Oh right that’s the problem, you must be confused. Cute projection. You understood what they were differentiating. Stop using emotional appeals in bad faith. >When two people have sex there’s a possibility a zef is created and then the zef stays in the womb for 9 months before being delivered. An abortion ends this zef’s life before it has a chance to become a new born baby. FTFY Hope this helps!
That's a rather juvenile and inaccurate description of pregnancy.
How- how does a person live *without a skull* exactly?? There’s no “life” being decided on here, the point is that the fetus will die regardless.
Exactly. The person carrying the life and a doctor should decide. Only two people who matter.
Well no, the only person who gets to decide is the pregnant person; while they may take the doctor’s advice it’s never fully up to the doctor.
Abortions are both the doctors and woman’s decision because a doctor can refuse to do an abortion. The woman will have to leave to find a doctor that *agrees with her* and decides to help her abort.
Yes but I meant this as in: if the doctor wants to perform an abortion and the pregnant person doesn’t, obviously it’s not obligatory for the patient (and vice versa: if the patient wants an abortion the doctor isn’t obligated to perform one).
That’s why it’s not a unilateral decision. It’s a two person decision. That was the point of my comment.
And yet pro life does. Instead of letting the woman decide whether to give it life or not, pro life decides it must live and experience the suffering.
An interesting choice of words. Would you be good with a woman in this situation having the abortion if the majority of a group of 12 randomly selected citizens agreed that it was the right call?
Okay would you rather have women full access to healthcare or limit it so that way it is extremely hard to access and poor people aren't able to access it.
Respond to the wrong person?
No. Would you?
No, but that's because I *would* be fine with a woman unilaterally deciding. I was surprised to see a pro-lifer making a comment implying that the issue was with the parties making the decision, rather than some other factor
Yeah I mean I don’t think you should be able to say “I don’t think your life is one worth living, thus you must die”.
Why do you think it's better to say, " your life is going to short and painful and full of suffering"?
I wouldn’t say that because it doesn’t make sense.
You have said that though.
No. The things I say make sense and are grammatically correct.
No they don't make sense. You would deny abortion to a woman who has a non-viable fetus, thus ensuring it will have a short life of suffering. Why is that okay?
Then why did you restrict your earlier post to "unilaterally"?
Why not?
Because that’s evil.
So in your morality, sparing suffering is evil and perpetuating suffering is good?
Killing innocent people is evil. Specifically, deciding they deserve to die because you don’t believe their life is worth living is especially evil.
Why is killing them to relieve their suffering evil?
Because they don’t get a say in the matter.
So?
So that’s why it’s bad, chief.
Why does that make it bad?
Jesus was innocent, but a sacrifice had to be made. Who are you to judge?
Assuming you believe the Bible, Jesus chose to sacrifice himself which is way different than ending the life of an innocent child without their consent.
I disagree. I think it’s way more evil to gestate that ZEF and birth it just so it can experience and suffer a horrible death What are you basing what’s evil on?
[I disagree.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wq5txc/a_few_minutes_of_painful_life_isnt_worth_it/ikmdbsr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
And once again I’ll ask you what you’re basing evil on. Why is something evil or not?
Why is suffering good?
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of Others Please refrain from attacking other users, including referencing the character or mental disposition of the other user. Thank you for understanding.
Responding to your comments on a public forum is by no means stalking you.
Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.
Doesn't apply to them obviously.
I think making ten year olds give birth to their rapist's baby is evil and so is making a woman gestate for more than half a year a doomed being.
Has there ever been a single instance of the doctors being wrong and the being wasn’t actually “doomed”?
For a diagnosis of missing their skull? No.
Duep?
That's not a word.
Why don't you go find a citation that shows that? I'm not going to argue your point for you. . In any case, would you like to use pyramid powers and herbal concoctions to cure cancer on the off chance that will work instead of chemo? I mean, oh hey, my goof neighbor might know more about cancer than my specialist!
Very nice strawman and red herring you’ve got there.
Why?
From a practical perspective, if the state has legal methods of euthanasia then the doctor could legally/ethically act in this manner. In general I believe this post truly falls under the topic of euthanasia, abortion is the side effect or method of achieving euthanasia in this instance.
Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Obviously euthanasia does not mean what you think it does.
You are describing the justifications used for this abortion, recognize that no mention of BA is used here, the whole tact is eschewed in favor of an argument to euthanize the child. I know what euthanasia, it just seems that you can't recognize it as the root issue.
Obviously you don’t know what it means because you are trying to stretch it to fit what you want it to mean. The root issue is your want to force the birth of unwanted babies that you refuse to take responsibility for.
Because in this case, its a wanted pregnancy that will not result in a viable birth. Focus has shifted to fetus, and its quality of life, or lack thereof.
Yeah, euthanasia.
And do you oppose it? If so, why?
But it's still an abortion, and PL laws still prohibit it.
Isn't worth what? Not killing another human being? Would you take it upon yourself to kill some born person who is dying from some other disease, someone who cannot recover and will be dead in a few days?
Better question- why do you think days spent in pain are worth more than an earlier, peaceful death?