Texas abortion law forced women to carry a dead fetus for 2 weeks

[Deleted member 586536]

https://web.archive.org/web/2022072...07/20/abortion-miscarriage-texas-fetus-stell/

Tl;dr jesus christ this is fucked
She had to get several invasive ultra sounds, all to prove without a doubt that the fetus was dead. Otherwise the doctors would risk loosing their medical license. How the fuck is this not considered inhumane by the republican party?

Oh wait
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843
"“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,”' From Jim Bop, one of the major people who wrote the right to life laws that exist in many states. Talking about the benefits of having a child as a 10 year old.

So never mind, odds are this is the thing you supported. And if you didn't? Maybe don't be surprised that the lions ate my face party, decides to eat your face. And for those who said "well it wasn't enumerated as a constitutional right, so therefore it's right to remove abortion/make it a state choice" not only is implied and stated we have un-enumerated rights, but now you have this problem having several times over, so was it worth removing something that everyone had already accepted as a right? Just because it had supposedly shaky ground?
So, let me ask you Republican voters. How would you go about solving these issues? Because now, as part of the party that caused this problem, you better have a reasonable solution to it without being utterly arbitrary.

 

[aoikurayami]

Things like these make me wish Hugh Laurie could reprise his role and "be witty" with these folk so hard, they'd have flashbacks to him roasting him, therefore keeping em from commiting anymore stupidity..

I wonder what they would think if someone told em "their body is not theirs"

I hate ppl like that.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I love how this thread got deserted by pro-birther hypocrites.

 

[Dragon91Nippon]

I love how this thread got deserted by pro-birther hypocrites.

Yup all they can do is react with the laughing emoji because they know they don't have a good argument that people here won't instantly tear apart.

 

[Creamu]

Yup all they can do is react with the laughing emoji because they know they don't have a good argument that people here won't instantly tear apart.

Fair enough, let's go through this.

Tl;dr [...]
She had to get several invasive ultra sounds,

I am not an expert on this. How invasive can an ultra sound be?

all to prove without a doubt that the fetus was dead.

How is this not reasonable?

Otherwise the doctors would risk loosing their medical license.

Yes, if your doctor gives you advise that deviates a little bit from what his/her/their authoritive sources say, the same thing might happen. You can loose your license (as far as I know) for very little slights as a doctor.

How the fuck is this not considered inhumane by the republican party?

I don't get the moral appeal to the republican party (or any of the two established parties). This made me seriously laugh.

"“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,”' From Jim Bop, one of the major people who wrote the right to life laws that exist in many states. Talking about the benefits of having a child as a 10 year old.

Okay... I feel like I am missing something.

So never mind, odds are this is the thing you supported. And if you didn't? Maybe don't be surprised that the lions ate my face party, decides to eat your face.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

And for those who said "well it wasn't enumerated as a constitutional right, so therefore it's right to remove abortion/make it a state choice" not only is implied and stated we have un-enumerated rights, but now you have this problem having several times over, so was it worth removing something that everyone had already accepted as a right? Just because it had supposedly shaky ground?

?

So, let me ask you Republican voters.

That's not me. Maybe this is why I don't get your... elaboration.

How would you go about solving these issues?

Checking if a baby is still alive to assess the situation I find perfectly reasonable, so I would keep it at that.

Because now, as part of the party that caused this problem, you better have a reasonable solution to it without being utterly arbitrary.

I think the republican party is retarded in the literal sense of the word. They do what the left party is doing with increased latency.

 

[tabzer]

"I don't need no 'invasive ultra sounds' doc, I've got 1.5 million followers and an image to promote. Now reach into me and scrape this thing out."

 

[LainaGabranth]

For two weeks? Christ alive, that's immoral. We definitely need to reign in states like Texas, this shit is unacceptable.

 

[Dragon91Nippon]

Texas is overall one of the worst states for anyone of any kind of diversity or vulnerability, they not only have extreme Prejudice towards LGBTQ but also treat women absolutely atrociously. I know they're not the only one, Florida is pretty awful as well but Texas has been doing all the bad stuff lately.

 

[Dakitten]

"I don't need no 'invasive ultra sounds' doc, I've got 1.5 million followers and an image to promote. Now reach into me and scrape this thing out."

He misspoke when he said invasive, as neither article uses the word. The fact remains that the woman WANTED THE CHILD AND IT DIED INSIDE OF HER AND THEY WOULD NOT REMOVE IT OUT OF FEAR OF REPRISAL YOU ILLITERATE SCUMBAG! It wasn't even an abortion story in the truest sense, the woman simply had complications that prevented the fetus from developing, and it was already too developed to be reabsorbed harmlessly or discharged easily so removal (which at this point isn't considered an abortion but dilation and curettage) was required for her health and well being. No "babykilling" or other stupid crap y'all rant about on here about, just a grieving woman who lost her potential child stuck with the remains inside of her and nobody would help her get it out due to fear of reprisal. I hope your bodypillow is very svelte because ignorance and pride like yours is never going to land you much by way of companionship.

I am not an expert on this. How invasive can an ultra sound be?

How is this not reasonable?

Checking if a baby is still alive to assess the situation I find perfectly reasonable, so I would keep it at that.

They already knew it was a miscarriage right from minute one. I wager he meant to say traumatizing or something to that effect, as exposing your body to unnecessary procedures to repeatedly confirm what you've already established is pretty brutal. Congratulations, you've proven once again that you can't read, you lean hard conservative/anti choice/anti women, and that you're in general just not a very empathic fellow.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I wager he meant to say traumatizing or something to that effect,

I did pretty much mispeak. Sorry about that. Unless you want to count my janky logic of " having to do multiple ultra sounds when you already know the baby is dead is really invasive." Which I really wouldn't, and that's more of a retroactive fix . Traumatizing is the more accurate word here. Especially since well... Having to go through another ultra sound after the child is already known to be dead is... Just... Fucked. Especially if you end up having to do it again...
I am a dude, I can't possibly comprehend in full how that would feel but just... Yikes... I can't imagine how... disgruntaling? Excruatiating? Like a word beyond/stronger traumatizing essentially...
I can't imagine how that would feel. Or more so can't imagine it in full. Other than knowing it's extremely horrorible
Edit:devastated is the word I was looking for

 

[RAHelllord]

How is this not reasonable?

2 weeks is more than enough time for the dead fetus to start decomposing and then poison and kill the mother. It takes about 15 minutes total to fully verify whether a fetus is dead or not, and no procedure on the planet exists to reverse the death. Having multiple ultrasounds to satisfy the incompetent law making of some dudes with no medical training whatsoever has no other reason than to be a show of strength at best and outright oppression at worst.

I repeat, in case this wasn't entirely clear the first time around, 2 weeks of having a dead fetus inside the womb is a very real and deadly risk to the mother. Dead tissue needs to be removed asap because the slightest complication can kill the mother before an ambulance reaches her. A dead fetus is a ticking timebomb and needs to be treated as the medical emergency it is, it's not a bruise you can ignore for a couple weeks.

"I don't need no 'invasive ultra sounds' doc, I've got 1.5 million followers and an image to promote. Now reach into me and scrape this thing out."

"I only do things for attention online and therefor everybody else must also only do things for attention." ~ verbatim from tabzer, ca. 2022

 

[tabzer]

He misspoke when he said invasive, as neither article uses the word. The fact remains that the woman WANTED THE CHILD AND IT DIED INSIDE OF HER AND THEY WOULD NOT REMOVE IT OUT OF FEAR OF REPRISAL YOU ILLITERATE SCUMBAG!

Ah more sensationalism. This is even better because you are accusing me of being illiterate for mocking the OP's (lack of) literacy. Learn to own it. Adjust your meds.

I don't think abortion is the controversial subject here. Either the doctor sucks or the patient thinks they are more aware of biology and medicine than the doctor. (Or, dystopia, medical doctors are politicians in disguise). Either way, there are enough examples in the article itself to demonstrate inconsistency, which makes it even more unreliable than both the patient and the doctor. Then you have OP adding another level... of illiteracy. Also, FYI, I referenced dilation and curettage in my original response.

Way to go!

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Ah more sensationalism. This is even better because you are accusing me of being illiterate for mocking the OP's (lack of) literacy.

You know... I'd hope you know what that word means in bold. I at least owned up to the fact I mispoke.
Because uh

Sensationalism: (especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.

Last time I checked, reporting on a factually true story is not sensationalist, since for something to be sensationalized, would require accuracy/facts on the matter be to falsified, or overblown.

 

[tabzer]

You know... I'd hope you know what that word means in bold. I at least owned up to the fact I mispoke.
Because uh

Sensationalism: (especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.

Last time I checked, reporting on a factually true story is not sensationalist, since for something to be sensationalized, would require accuracy/facts on the matter be to falsified or brought to the extreme.

I already mentioned inconsistencies. Why don't you ask about that? (I already mocked your sensationalism)

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I already mentioned inconsistencies. Why don't you ask about that?

First off. Deflecting from the fact that you just proved that you are illiterate, or acting as such in your previous statement with using "it's sensationalized" as an argument. When you clearly don't understand the meaning behind said word.
Edit: a side of whataboutism as well.
"Okay, but let's focus on what I said earlier." Says the person in an attempt to move the discussion away from a mistake they made.

Second off. I don't have to mentioned inconsistencies. Since @Dakitten
Already said what I was going to say about your statement (with a lot less swearing of you being a piece of crap)
Edit: and @RAHelllord

 

[tabzer]

First off. Deflecting from the fact that you just proved that your are illiterate or acting as such in your previous statement with using "it's sensationalized" as an argument. When you clearly don't understand the meaning behind said word.

Second off. I don't have to mentioned inconsistencies. Since @Dakitten
Already said what I was going to say about your statement (with a lot less swearing of you being a piece of crap)
Edit: and @RAHelllord

I haven't done anything illiterate. Before we go forward, you need to point out how you "mispoke" is my fault. I said there were inconsistencies and that the article is more unreliable than the SNS celebrity. Your sensationalist take is a 3rd layer of bias. "Apologizing" after I mocked you doesn't make me the one who was being illiterate, lol.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Well wdyk i resurrected this thread and the result is an apocalypse of misogyny and antiscienticic nonsense paired with pathetic attempts at justifying necromancy.

 

[tabzer]

antiscienticic

That's awesome. Someone who won't bother to proof their own statements can't be trusted to thoroughly read what they are responding to.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I haven't done anything illiterate.

We are going to take this slow. Very slow. I'm not going to go through any of your other talking points. Outside the first two sentences of your quote. For the moment.

Before we go forward, you need to point out how you "mispoke" is my fault.

Never my argument or statement. I never pinned the blame on you. Go ahead, ctrl f it for me.
However Dakitten summed up what would be my argument best.

he fact remains that the woman WANTED THE CHILD AND IT DIED INSIDE OF HER AND THEY WOULD NOT REMOVE IT OUT OF FEAR OF REPRISAL

The women in question, wanted the child removed who was already dead. You decided to post this in response

Ah more sensationalism.

Tabzer, you know what sensationalism is right?

I'd assume so.

"I don't need no 'invasive ultra sounds' doc, I've got 1.5 million followers and an image to promote. Now reach into me and scrape this thing out."

especially as the person who practices sensationalism themself.

So I'm going to say this once.

You are acting illiterate here, if you knew what sensationalism meant, you wouldn't have tried throwing it as a accusation.

Me misspeaking, isn't your fault.
it's your fault for coming in and not reading the damn article yourself
had you read it, you wouldn't have called it sensationalist.

If we can come to an agreement, I'll move onto the rest of your talking points. Otherwise, I will not bother.

 

[tabzer]

You are acting illiterate here, if you knew what sensationalism meant, you wouldn't have tried throwing it as a accusation.

Wrong. WAPO article, your OP, and Dakitten are all being sensationalists. I don't know enough about SNS celebrity.

Me misspeaking, isn't your fault.

Oh, learning. Cool.

it's your fault for coming in and not reading the damn article yourself
had you read it, you wouldn't have called it sensationalist.

I read the article. There is evidence in that I originally responded to details that were only accessible by the article.

Now. If you read the article, tell me how someone miscarries the same fetus twice?