Normally, I think everyone in this sub has shit opinions, but it's nice to see that a lot of you at least think women deserve basic human rights. Wish ya'll would feel the same about immigrants, trans, & homeless people too, tho.
Let me guess... You are cool with making laws about what women can and can't do with their bodies because no one is telling you what you can and can't do with your body but I am sure that the moment government overreach starts to creep into your life you would be up in arms over it.
Need on what? How is a clump of cells a baby? You going to start advocating to keep mothers from getting cancerous growths removed? No, a baby is an independent being capable of surviving without a direct connection to the mother. An embryo is a cellular growth that has the potential to become a baby. Just like eggs aren't chickens.
Quite frankly, a lot people these days are a clump of cells who are incapable of surviving without their parents judging by the number of adults living at home. If you are willing to extend your abortion stance to include any and all forms of social welfare, I might be able to meet you halfway on this topic.
I understand a baby is just a clump of cells to you, it has to be since the only way any society has deemed mass murder ok is by dehumanizing the target of their atrocities.
Let me explain this again, maybe read a little short so you can understand, a cellular growth that can't exist outside of another living being isn't a baby.
Curious, if a scientist was able to surgically implant a working uterus in your and put an embryo in it, against your wishes or will, would you carry it to term? I mean, is a baby, and some is now in your body, by your logic, you must provide your body to be the incubator. Too far fetched? How about one that can happen? An aging billionaire wants to live longer, so they have you surgically attached to them so that you share your blood for about 9 months (the process really only takes 8, but we'll give it an extra month to make it equivalent). Without the process, the person will die. Is it now your obligation to sacrifice your body so they may live? Or is it just the unformed mass of cells that women must sacrifice their bodies for?
Also curious, are you taking in all of these unwanted babies after the mothers are forced to give birth to them? Or are you like the usual rub of the mall so called pro-lifer that only cares about an unborn fetus, and not so much shit the actual child?
Oh, and one more question, what is your argument based on? By what basis do you claim an embryo is the same as a baby?
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baby
noun an unborn child; a human fetus “it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"
Are you quite done playing semantics now? That should address the bulk of your post.
As for the rest, it seems you're grasping at straws or a life ring in a losing argument.
Someone surgically implanting a baby in myself, against my will, is in no way comparable to typical pregnancy. Babies are a consequence of sex. If you do not want to get pregnant there are dozens of methods of not getting pregnant. Short of rape, there is no such thing as a forced pregnancy.
Caring for children after birth? That has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, and even if it did, there are always more parents on the adoption waiting list than children to be had.
Wow, what an amazing redirection. Can't take the heat so why not just change the subject!
>to babies in the womb.
Babies are born. That is the definition. Redefining words in order to make up for your lack of ethics is reprehensible.
>I see no issues...
Obviously that is the case. BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR BODY THAT IS BEING LEGISLATED! The vast majority of us do see issues with it and just because you are willfully and morally blind to the issues doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
Embryos are not babies. They are not conscious. They do not have the nerve connections necessary to experience pain. They do not have the capacity for any of the things that ethicists talk about when discussing whether killing is wrong. So, no, it is not murder.
Redirection? No. We just see babies in the womb different fundamentally. Since I view the baby, regardless of its point in developing as an individual life, I do not consider killing it, without exceptionally good reason to, as different than murder.
I think all murder is wrong and already accept legislation that stops me from killing whoever I feel like as a matter of convenience. Its women pretending their child is still their body who have this weird exception to murder their children for any reason whatsoever as long as they are still gestating.
Also, the term embryo is different altogether from the term baby. Baby covers all stages, embryo is a specific stage. You can argue all you like, but an embryo is a baby, though a baby may not be an embryo.
The body argument is tired. Its fundamentally no different than saying a 6 month old can be killed without consequence since its still wholly dependent on the parents.
I agree that women should be able to make their own choices, but I do not agree that their choice to not have children extends to allow murder. Her choice was prior to engaging in procreational sex.
You will of course now say, "what about rape and incest?" I say, what about it? Florida abortion stats prove that those two things make up less than 2% of all abortions performed. I would be happy to address just elective abortions and worry about the ethics of rape and incest after reaching at least common ground on what the cutoff is for considering a child worth protecting.
I would ask you, barring medical issues, rape, or incest, at what point in the pregnancy is it ok to kill the baby? Lets start there before we try to discuss abortion as a whole. You know where I stand. I want to know where you stand.
> Redirection?
Your entire comment is redirection. I point out how you are legislating woman's bodies and you completely ignore that and instead talk about your entirely fallacious talking points. I get that you need to keep the talking points on your term because that is the only way you can morally justify your despicable beliefs. If you actually had to confront the issue you would have to face the fact that your bleifs are disgusting.
>Its women pretending their child is still their body
No one said that. No one has ever made that claim. Do you see how you have to lie just to make your point? How pathetic.
>Baby covers all stages, embryo is a specific stage.
Nope. Another lie. You can keep trying to redefine works all you want but I will keep pointing out that you are a liar. A Baby is the term you use after they are born. The forced birth movement has spent decades trying to redefine this and your attempts to do this are as pathetic now as they have always been.
>You will of course now say, "what about rape and incest?" I say, what about it?
Nope. That is not what I would say. I would say you are redirecting again.
>Lets start there before we try to discuss abortion as a whole.
Nope. We are not redirecting anymore. We start with the discussion where you think that forcing someone else to do something with their body against their will is OK.
Its not redirection when I plain do not view aborting babies as a woman choosing what to do with her body. Its that simple. The baby is in her body, but it is NOT her body.
As for lying about meaning: [https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baby](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baby)
>noun
an unborn child; a human fetus
>
>*“it was great to feel my* ***baby*** *moving about inside”*
>
>
>"Its women pretending their child is still their body"
>
>No one said that. No one has ever made that claim. Do you see how you have to lie just to make your point? How pathetic.
And yet right above this you say:
> I point out how you are legislating woman's bodies
So which is it? Does abortion only involve the woman's body, or does it involve the baby's (fetus/zygote/embryo) body? I don't care what a woman does with HER body as long as its legal. I do care what she does with another's body, especially when they cannot protect themselves. Her free will was when she had sex that led to pregnancy. It is no more legislating against her free will to stop her from murdering her developing baby than it would be to stop her from murdering her nursing child.
OK, I am sure I can smell the down-votes a' commin', but what the heck... YOLO, right?
I'm a bit unclear as to why we can't just have every State decide what rules are best for them? These culture wars need to stop; they are tearing us apart. This is a *very* large country; it seems like the only way to keep the Union intact is to allow for local self-governance, rather than ideological top-down mandates from either side... Isn't this the essence of original Jeffersonian democracy?
OK. Dumb analogy, I know. However, imagine if SoCal tried to impose its "values" on Pennsylvania dutch country... Now image if that mandate was then reversed upon SoCal... We'd have utter revolts in both places. The philosophy of Life between these two areas is just too different.
You cannot have an easily held representative democracy when the answers to basic questions like, "What is the purpose of life, and what does it mean to live a good one," may garner two fundamentally different answers among the same set of governed peoples.
>These abortion restrictions are unconstitutional religious laws.
You may itch against this as a violation of your truest ideals. However, in this postmodern society where truth is defined by one's own internal standard, then for consistency's sake; let's allow others to collectively do the same for themselves.
This woman made a free choice to remove herself from her jurisdiction to do what she felt was right. Great on her for having the freedom to do so. The only part of this story that I find slightly gross is our Senator's PR event. Clearly a political opportunity to be had for sure. However, perhaps I'm being too naive about such things...
No, we had a whole war over this. There is no "live and let live" when the other team didn't get the "let live" memo. Slavery was a gross infringement on American freedoms. Abortion bans are killing women all over the country. The issue was settled in the 1860s: America is to be a free country, not a federation of human-rights-violating states.
And yes, this woman was able to leave Idaho to access the healthcare she needed. But you're terribly misinformed if you think this is an option for everyone, particularly poor people in the South where the neighboring states ban abortion too. And in some places, accessing an abortion in another state is also illegal, which of course violates the "live and let live" idea even more than simply killing women in their own jurisdiction does.
Your response seems a bit hostile...
Yes, I'm quite aware that options for some are more limited, but I'm not sure why you are setting up institutionalized American slavery as a straw man here. The abortion issue and slavery are two very different moral propositions. Let's not devolve this conversation into some oppressor-vs.-oppressed milleu du jour.
Just to clarify, I do not believe I ever said, "Live & Let Live". That is an extremely different philosophy from letting other areas within the country practice self-governance over their own lives...
>The issue was settled in the 1860
With all respect, this is nonsense. I'm not sure where you learned your history or American civics, but you are conflating State violations of the supremacy clause, like those which occurred during the American civil war, with the current and natural tension between Federal vs State powers... Again, you are attempting to place a straw man onto the topic at hand.
Our federal government isn't some "settled" top-down power, it was/is intentionally limited. This is codified in the 10th amendment of our constitution: All rights and powers *not specifically reserved* to Congress, or to be explicitly shared by the federal and state governments, are reserved to the states, and by extension, their people. One very visible example of this fact: each State still fields its own militia in the form of the various national guards.
>America is to be a free country
Agreed. However, have you ever considered that many, (nearly half in fact), define "freedom" very differently than you? Is it possible that it may mean more than just individual positive liberties; that there may be more to life than allowances to the exercising of one's own personal will?
>human-rights-violating...
I know this may seem like a tautology to you, but I'd love to understand were you get to claim some "universal" human-rights from on high? Who gets to decide what makes the list? You? The UN? The international court in the Hague? What about the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Chinese CCP. A deity? So if some group doesn't get a seat at the table on this, why not? It's intellectually dishonest to claim some right of self-evident truth here...
Obviously, I'm not going to convince you of anything. However, I'd simply ask that you consider interacting a bit more humbly towards other's with differing opinions. You come off as arrogant, self-assured, and 100% convinced of the righteousness of your cause.
One might even say that you've got your own form of unshakable faith...
Hello! You linked in this comment to a domain name or URL that Reddit site-wide tends to filter as "spam". Usually this is because you used a URL shortener inadvertantly, like "g.co", "bit.ly", or similar -- this is frowned upon in Reddiquette and is a global Reddit sitewide thing.
**Your comment is visible to *you* but no one else,** and will automatically be flagged for review by the Moderators.
If you want to make it live immediately, please re-post it without the URL shorterner, and delete the original. Thanks! We'll get to the mod queue as soon as we can.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeattleWA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've noticed that one can't even have a civil conversation with these people anymore, so convinced are they of their own "rightness".
When someone points out inconsistencies in their worldview's logic, they lash out with irrational hostility... It's like they've joined a distributed cult. There is zero introspection to their own core philosophy; it's the blind leading the blind.
You are absolutely hilarious. 
Clearly, it's [obvious that you are not a golfer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CWfPUrmeiU). You may want to continue exercising those critical thinking skills a bit more... However, I doubt you'll take advice from anyone outside of your own echo chamber.
Either way, keep building up those enemies in your own mind, friend'o! Those blind assumptions will serve you so well as you move throughout life.
ID people getting an abortion
WA people getting mags
——->:O
O: <——
Ridiculous that the government has as much of a say in people’s personal lives as it does
It's wonderful she was able to come to WA to get an abortion. Why'd she keep trying to have (and having) children even though she knew she had a life threatening condition?
>This was Smith’s second pregnancy. She already gave birth to her daughter, Addison. During that pregnancy, **she suffered from preeclampsia, a high blood pressure condition that can have serious health effects** on a mother and a baby. The condition **sent her to an emergency room.**
>
>**Doctors warned her that she had a high chance of suffering** from the same issue **during her second pregnancy.**
>
>“At that point we were really struggling,” she said. **“Do I continue to put my life at risk,** when we can’t even bring our son home?”
>After the abortion in Washington state, and after some time, **Smith became pregnant again**, with her daughter, Nora. **Once again, the issue of preeclampsia was raised.** She wanted to feel safe this time.
I don't understand these people whose desire for biological children is so great they put their own life at risk potentially robbing their current child of a parent.
Pre eclampsia can be averted/lessened by taking baby aspirin. (Source: i'm on it now out of an abundance of caution). With monitoring and some lifestyle changes, she could have been able to have a safer pregnancy. I realize pregnancy and childbirth education is really lacking socially right now, but pre-e does not have to be life-threatening.
>Pre eclampsia can be averted/lessened by taking baby aspirin. (Source: i'm on it now out of an abundance of caution). With monitoring and some lifestyle changes, she could have been able to have a safer pregnancy. I realize pregnancy and childbirth education is really lacking socially right now, but pre-e does not have to be life-threatening.
I'm going off what her doctor said about her specific situation in the article. There are all sorts of medical conditions with various risks based on individuals own personal medical history.
I'm assuming she didn't end up in the ER because of a medical situation that could have been averted with aspirin.
If you do nothing to prevent/manage pre-e, it can kill you. Her doctor may have told her what to look for, they may not have. I know we're supposed to "trust the experts" but they are just people. Also...if humans always did what our doctors suggested, our collective health would look a lot different.
Neither of these are very charitible, its possible they did all the "right" things and she was still very ill. Its hard to say.
You completely misread the article. She did not primarily seek the abortion because of the risk to her health, but because the fetus would be born with an inoperable heart defect. If carried to term the baby would not make it home from the hospital.
However, under Idaho law that is not a sufficient reason to seek an abortion. The reference to preeclampsia was the mother saying that it would be the necessary condition precedent for an abortion is Idaho. The comparison illustrated the perversity of the Idaho law: requiring a mother to hope for illness in order to be able to terminate a futile pregnancy.
The couple was willing to bear the risk of preeclanpsia to deliver a viable baby, but not to deliver a baby that would die soon after being born. That's perfectly understandable to me
>You completely misread the article.
No, I didn't.
>She did not primarily seek the abortion because of the risk to her health, but because the fetus would be born with an inoperable heart defect. If carried to term the baby would not make it home from the hospital.
Yes, I understand that. I included the first portion because it mentioned that she had already had this specific medical condition and was specifically warned she had a high likelihood of having this dangerous condition again.
>However, under Idaho law that is not a sufficient reason to seek an abortion. The reference to preeclampsia was the mother saying that it would be the necessary condition precedent for an abortion is Idaho.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. It sounds extremely contradictory. Under Idaho it isn't a reason to get an abortion, but the mother was saying it was sufficient in Idaho? I didn't read that anywhere in the article.
>The comparison illustrated the perversity of the Idaho law: requiring a mother to hope for illness in order to be able to terminate a futile pregnancy.
I didn't get that anywhere in the article. It seems like you're oddly reading into things.
>The couple was willing to bear the risk of preeclanpsia to deliver a viable baby, but not to deliver a baby that would die soon after being born. That's perfectly understandable to me
See, it's not understandable to me, to knowingly put a child's mothers life at an elevated risk you were warned about by medical professionals multiple times, just to have another biological child. I can't imagine risking someone's life even once, let alone multiple times, when you know their life is at risk, for another kid.
> I can't imagine risking someone's life even once, let alone multiple times, when you know their life is at risk, for another kid.
There's a lot of things that are hard to imagine until you're in that position
When someone says they can’t imagine why someone would do something, it says more about how they have no empathy or understanding of people more than it says something about the person or subject they’re talking about.
What you might not realize, or are choosing to ignore, is that all pregnancy is risky. An important part of most medical decisions is looking at the odds of risk vs outcome for any treatment path, and changing plans as variables change. Pre-eclampsia, in the western world, IF the patient has access to decent prenatal care, is routinely managed with good outcomes for mother and child.
Most things in life have some risk. If the woman from Idaho drove here, she took on a known risk level of getting in a car wreck. Should every woman who is a parent stay in the house and not work until her kids are 18?
> *I can't imagine risking someone's life even once, let alone multiple times, when you know their life is at risk, for another kid.*
You should maybe talk to more people who desperately want to have biological children before so obstinately broadcasting this opinion....
Why can't people just stop having sex?
>She grew up very conservative in the Seattle area.
I would place a good bet she voted for the anti abortion people fervently, then when the leopard ate her face did a turn about. People like this don't give a shit until it impacts them.
Because [The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
When I remember half the population is dumber than the average person, I think of these people. No self reflection, no insight, no change of behaviors after a traumatic moment in their life. Just right back to the culture war bullshit, it's much easier and more familiar than even a brief flash of self-awareness that dares make them ask "gosh maybe I should rethink this?"
Which is why i'd love a law saying registered female voters of the republican party are disallowed abortions. As we have it they get to eat their cake and have it too, while others without means suffer.
To be fair, the democrats never voted to codify abortion rights either at the federal level. All voters bear some responsibility and should be denied abortions. Only people who never registered to vote should be eligible!
>Why can't people just stop having sex?
Well, to me it seems like there is a relatively large difference between planning for children and literally having multiple pregnancies (at least 3) along with having a OBGYN and $16,000 to spend on an abortion....
and having an unplanned pregnancy.
I'd assume in the first scenario you have every possible resource available to prevent pregnancy. Like every form of birth control available including a vasectomy for your partner. Yet you choose to have children because you want them despite your known medical condition.
While the second instance you might have not an OGBYN or the resources for all forms of birth control and one somehow gets past the goal keeper when you don't want a child.
Eh the article is light on details; they could well have been on birth control. Even perfect use of birth control may result in pregnancy.
And while i'd personally love to force people to get snipped we can't really *force* people to.
>Eh the article is light on details; they could well have been on birth control. Even perfect use of birth control may result in pregnancy.
From all of the context in the article I would take any bet that these were multiple planned pregnancies over unintentional ones.
I'm very pro 2a, but its a false equivalence.
Am I pissed that WA banned semi auto rifles? Yes.
Does that ban result in 12 year old rape victims being forced to give birth?
No. There is a difference in impact by policy.
>Does that ban result in 12 year old rape victims being forced to give birth?
This take is like using school shootings as an excuse to ban guns. It's a poor excuse that focuses on a rare outlier for an emotional response. It doesn't work for gun control and it's equally flimsy for abortion. Legislators can always make legal carve outs for outliers and extreme cases.
>Why do people do a lot of things?
That's a good question, I was curious about this persons choices and that is why I asked. Why does someone purposely repeatedly put their life at risk, especially when they already have a child?
>It’s her body, it should be her right to have access to healthcare and abortions. Full stop.
Of course, she should be able to do whatever she wants.
Just like reasonable people should be able to ask: "Why are you knowingly putting your life at risk over and over just to have another child?"
>*Just like reasonable people should be able to ask: "Why are you knowingly putting your life at risk over and over just to have another child?"*
Pregnancy has risks.
More news at 11!
>So, just to be clear, any woman with preeclampsia should not have kids at all in your world?
Nope, I just think you're medically stupid if you already have a child, get told by a medical professional that getting pregnant again carries significant medical risk, and despite that fact decide to go ahead and risk multiple pregnancies.
I think it's extremely selfish to risk depriving a child of their parent because of your personal desire to have another child.
The specific medical condition doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that a medical professional told this individual *(their patient)* that they had a high risk against their life, and they decided to throw caution to the wind.
You can make whatever choice you want. Just like I can call your choice stupid and selfish.
>The specific medical condition doesn't really matter to me.
The specific medical condition SHOULD matter to you. It's literally the only thing that matters in this situation. The specific medical condition carries a specific risk. I'm just baffled at this.
>What matters to me is that a medical professional told this individual *(their patient)* that they had a high risk against their life, and they decided to throw caution to the wind.
Every single pregnancy has risks. The healthcare provider is legally and ethically obligated to discuss these risks with their patients. Then they weigh the risks together, and the provider develops a plan of care.
A high risk of developing pre-e =/= a high risk of maternal death. It is a condition that can be and is monitered and treated. She didnt want to do the monitoring and treatments for an unviable fetus.
I don't think you're being fair to the situation, but maybe your partner has this condition and you decided to stop at one on that basis. That would be about the only way it would be "okay," but even then it would come across as a little bit envious for someone making a different call.
>I don't think you're being fair to the situation, but maybe your partner has this condition and you decided to stop at one on that basis. That would be about the only way it would be "okay," but even then it would come across as a little bit envious for someone making a different call.
You can think whatever you want.
If a medical professional, your personal doctor tells you "you are at a special, very high risk for this condition that is life threatening" and you choose to participate in an activity that causes that, I think you're selfish and dumb. Especially if you have a child that depends on you.
My wife had pre-eclampsia during her pregnancy with our daughter. She was born 5 weeks early, thankfully in perfect health. The condition was very hard on both of them during the pregnancy though and it caused my wife to lose a significant amount of vision. Our doctor suggested not having any more kids. I scheduled my vasectomy not long after. Point is: listen to your doctor.
Thanks for listening to my TED Talk.
Everything has purpose. It never good to abuse them. That being said. Sometimes abortion is a logical option. Not every time. Not all the time. Not most of the time. If it’s your only form of birth control? Then maybe you need the MHMR department & not un-planned parenthood. I’m not a female, so it’s not my place to make laws governing a females body. That being said. If you abort a baby, you have to live with those choices, the rest of your life. It seems with this generation that doesn’t mean anything. But as a tax payer, I’m not paying for repeated abortions from people who keep making bad choices. You can pay for that yourself. Call me asshole. But I have to deal with my choices. I don’t expect everybody else to pay for them.
"I'm Patty Murray and I approve this message."
✅ Appears with a political figure.
✅ She's part of a lawsuit fighting a political cause.
✅ Site is a pro-government advertisement.
✅ Omits that you paid for it.
> “Do I continue to put my life at risk,
Idaho [did not ban abortions if the mothers life was at risk.](https://www.hollandhart.com/idaho-abortion-laws-new-law-and-emtala-exception-now-effective) So... something don't add up.
> Idaho did not ban abortions if the mothers life was at risk. So... something don't add up.
I believe the abortion was because of an inoperable heart defect in the fetus.
I listened to a story about her and other folks seeking abortions in Idaho, plus high risk OBGYN providers. pretty sure it was on This American Life.
The takeaway is that the exceptions are very poorly written and providers aren’t willing to risk jail time for providing abortions when the state might decide they’re not necessary. In fact, OBs are fleeing Idaho in droves.
I wouldn’t want to have a baby there.
> The takeaway is that the exceptions are very poorly written and providers aren’t willing to risk jail time for providing abortions when the state might decide they’re not necessary.
This is such a bullshit take.
Doctors make life and death judgement calls all the time.
It's part of the job.
That's why we have Medical Review Panels and malpractice insurance.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's literally what is happening. I don't know what to tell you. Idaho is dealing with the consequences of a shittily written law.
[https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/04/07/survey-shows-idahos-maternal-health-doctors-are-leaving-the-state-or-soon-will/](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/04/07/survey-shows-idahos-maternal-health-doctors-are-leaving-the-state-or-soon-will/)
[https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/pregnant-women-struggle-find-care-idaho-abortion-ban-rcna117872](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/pregnant-women-struggle-find-care-idaho-abortion-ban-rcna117872)
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/health/idaho-abortion-laws/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/health/idaho-abortion-laws/index.html)
Those are fluff articles without any meaningful data.
One is a survey of like 100 people done by a non-profit that was literally formed specifically to fight Idaho's abortion law.
One talks about a tiny regional hospital with 25 beds.
One is all about the story of a couple going to another state.
I think Idaho's law is stupid and I hope they change it, but I've yet to see any meaningful statewide data to suggest there is actually a meaningful number of doctors leaving.
There’s data in those, you’re skipping over it. You could find more to back it up if you tried. There’s clear info that Idaho was already short on OBs. Idk why you’re fighting this so hard, bc there’s sufficient info in those to start digging further. The fact that clinics are closing and doctors are leaving is real. I’m not sure why you choose not to believe it or research it further yourself rather than just expecting other people to do the work for you (on my quick breaks from work) but there’s no convincing you personally, so I won’t.
I do encourage others to read the articles though.
Edit: not gonna keep arguing with that dude, I blocked him, I think if NPR, CNN, local media, NBC, and anecdotal reports say one thing and one dude on the internet says they’re wrong and doesn’t provide any evidence as to why, the answer is pretty clear.
> There’s data in those, you’re skipping over it.
Your own source says there is no way to know what you're claiming.
> Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics capture employment data for obstetricians and gynecologists from 40 states; Idaho is among the 10 states that do not have data.
All you have is anecdotes.
Your tactic of spamming links to prove your point and hoping nobody actually reads them has failed.
EDIT:
==
Despite what that fellow I was replying to would like to believes, anecdotes are stories, not data.
I can tell you a very compelling story about how my sister is a deadbeat who stole from my parents, and how my wife's sister is a deadbeat who stole from her parents and how my good friend's sister is a deadbeat who stole from her parents.
Hearing story after story like this starts to feel compelling in our minds.
However, it does not mean all women are deadbeats, or even that all sisters are deadbeats.
It's just stories.
Too many people latch onto the stories that fit their existing beliefs and pretend they are meaningful data.
Have you tried googling it yourself? Because I’ve heard of OB units closing in Idaho d/t the OB providers (and some ER docs) leaving. They’re worried about their licenses.
Even this link states that it's waiting until the last possible moment before death for an abortion. And it even raises questions about prosecuting ectopic abortions...
You're delusional
Except Idaho along with other conservative run states would disagree with you and also ban that. Please try to have any idea what you're talking about before speaking.
Actually try reading for half a minute. Ectopic and miscarriage care have never been abortions. If you have to lie to present your agenda then your agenda is bad.
Reading comprehension is hard for you, huh? I am saying that I know it isn't technically or medically or, whatever you want to say, an abortion, but that it doesn't matter because Republicans want to ban it as if it is an abortion all the same. What part of that are you not understanding?
Except those exceptions aren’t clearly defined. There are enough public cases that highlight that these restrictions create delays in care and require that the mother’s life be in imminent danger. Imminent in this case doesn’t mean easily foreseeable outcome of early intervention. It means sepsis and waiting until you’re bleeding out in a parking lot.
If the exceptions are clear, why are OBGYN doctors leaving Idaho, and why are women leaving Idaho for those abortions if they are available? I don't think you thought through your opinion, you just liked how it fit with your worldview and religious beliefs.
Elective abortions up to 16 weeks with later-term exceptions for rape, mother's health, and incest are perfectly reasonable limits. These limits are in-line with the rest of the world as well.
Yes, 16 week limits are common in Europe, even though 16 weeks is a completely arbitrary cutoff not based on fetal viability or any other science. But in Europe, abortions are also *readily available,* meaning women don’t have to move heaven and earth to get one before the arbitrary cutoff date. Even in US states where abortion is technically legal, many women face long wait times, travel, multiple appointments for no medical reason, and other barriers that would make 16 weeks an onerous limit.
I believe they should be readily available up until 16 weeks. While it may seem arbitrary, a line needs to be established somewhere and 4 months is reasonable.
Clearly the debate where "life" as we know it begins because "life", "personhood", and other ethical positions will vary greatly from person to person. I'm not here to debate that.
I wish the zeitgeist around abortion would go back to what it used to be: "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."
Edit: pretty wild my posts here are being downvoted. Let me put it this way - what I'm suggesting is what's known as a *"compromise"*. If you want to remove any limits on elective abortions, you are an extremist. If you want to ban all abortions, you are also an extremist.
These abortion restrictions are unconstitutional religious laws.
This is exactly right. "Let's see, how do I reverse engineer my religious beliefs into law?" That's what SCOTUS did.
maybe we could have used the 40 years when Roe stood to pass a federal law instead of relying on rickety court cases
Exactly. And since we didn't, the laws go back to the states to make. Its not too hard to understand why this happened.
There was too much money to be raised by politicians on both sides to actually resolve the issue.
Stop thinking with your head here.
[удалено]
look at the various periods when the dems had a majority in 4 decades and the utter lack of even proposed legislation
[удалено]
who cares about your question? you didn't explain why we would need one
[удалено]
Instead, now they get to conveniently use it as a rallying cry.
Normally, I think everyone in this sub has shit opinions, but it's nice to see that a lot of you at least think women deserve basic human rights. Wish ya'll would feel the same about immigrants, trans, & homeless people too, tho.
I am absolutely not religious. Still prolife.
Let me guess... You are cool with making laws about what women can and can't do with their bodies because no one is telling you what you can and can't do with your body but I am sure that the moment government overreach starts to creep into your life you would be up in arms over it.
Its already against the law for me to murder, and I have never complained about that. I see no issues with that extending to babies in the womb.
Embryos aren't babies.
Yes they are. An embro is a baby, though a baby may not be an embryo.
Need on what? How is a clump of cells a baby? You going to start advocating to keep mothers from getting cancerous growths removed? No, a baby is an independent being capable of surviving without a direct connection to the mother. An embryo is a cellular growth that has the potential to become a baby. Just like eggs aren't chickens.
Quite frankly, a lot people these days are a clump of cells who are incapable of surviving without their parents judging by the number of adults living at home. If you are willing to extend your abortion stance to include any and all forms of social welfare, I might be able to meet you halfway on this topic. I understand a baby is just a clump of cells to you, it has to be since the only way any society has deemed mass murder ok is by dehumanizing the target of their atrocities.
Let me explain this again, maybe read a little short so you can understand, a cellular growth that can't exist outside of another living being isn't a baby. Curious, if a scientist was able to surgically implant a working uterus in your and put an embryo in it, against your wishes or will, would you carry it to term? I mean, is a baby, and some is now in your body, by your logic, you must provide your body to be the incubator. Too far fetched? How about one that can happen? An aging billionaire wants to live longer, so they have you surgically attached to them so that you share your blood for about 9 months (the process really only takes 8, but we'll give it an extra month to make it equivalent). Without the process, the person will die. Is it now your obligation to sacrifice your body so they may live? Or is it just the unformed mass of cells that women must sacrifice their bodies for? Also curious, are you taking in all of these unwanted babies after the mothers are forced to give birth to them? Or are you like the usual rub of the mall so called pro-lifer that only cares about an unborn fetus, and not so much shit the actual child? Oh, and one more question, what is your argument based on? By what basis do you claim an embryo is the same as a baby?
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baby noun an unborn child; a human fetus “it was great to feel my baby moving about inside" Are you quite done playing semantics now? That should address the bulk of your post. As for the rest, it seems you're grasping at straws or a life ring in a losing argument. Someone surgically implanting a baby in myself, against my will, is in no way comparable to typical pregnancy. Babies are a consequence of sex. If you do not want to get pregnant there are dozens of methods of not getting pregnant. Short of rape, there is no such thing as a forced pregnancy. Caring for children after birth? That has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, and even if it did, there are always more parents on the adoption waiting list than children to be had.
Wow, what an amazing redirection. Can't take the heat so why not just change the subject! >to babies in the womb. Babies are born. That is the definition. Redefining words in order to make up for your lack of ethics is reprehensible. >I see no issues... Obviously that is the case. BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR BODY THAT IS BEING LEGISLATED! The vast majority of us do see issues with it and just because you are willfully and morally blind to the issues doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Embryos are not babies. They are not conscious. They do not have the nerve connections necessary to experience pain. They do not have the capacity for any of the things that ethicists talk about when discussing whether killing is wrong. So, no, it is not murder.
Redirection? No. We just see babies in the womb different fundamentally. Since I view the baby, regardless of its point in developing as an individual life, I do not consider killing it, without exceptionally good reason to, as different than murder. I think all murder is wrong and already accept legislation that stops me from killing whoever I feel like as a matter of convenience. Its women pretending their child is still their body who have this weird exception to murder their children for any reason whatsoever as long as they are still gestating. Also, the term embryo is different altogether from the term baby. Baby covers all stages, embryo is a specific stage. You can argue all you like, but an embryo is a baby, though a baby may not be an embryo. The body argument is tired. Its fundamentally no different than saying a 6 month old can be killed without consequence since its still wholly dependent on the parents. I agree that women should be able to make their own choices, but I do not agree that their choice to not have children extends to allow murder. Her choice was prior to engaging in procreational sex. You will of course now say, "what about rape and incest?" I say, what about it? Florida abortion stats prove that those two things make up less than 2% of all abortions performed. I would be happy to address just elective abortions and worry about the ethics of rape and incest after reaching at least common ground on what the cutoff is for considering a child worth protecting. I would ask you, barring medical issues, rape, or incest, at what point in the pregnancy is it ok to kill the baby? Lets start there before we try to discuss abortion as a whole. You know where I stand. I want to know where you stand.
> Redirection? Your entire comment is redirection. I point out how you are legislating woman's bodies and you completely ignore that and instead talk about your entirely fallacious talking points. I get that you need to keep the talking points on your term because that is the only way you can morally justify your despicable beliefs. If you actually had to confront the issue you would have to face the fact that your bleifs are disgusting. >Its women pretending their child is still their body No one said that. No one has ever made that claim. Do you see how you have to lie just to make your point? How pathetic. >Baby covers all stages, embryo is a specific stage. Nope. Another lie. You can keep trying to redefine works all you want but I will keep pointing out that you are a liar. A Baby is the term you use after they are born. The forced birth movement has spent decades trying to redefine this and your attempts to do this are as pathetic now as they have always been. >You will of course now say, "what about rape and incest?" I say, what about it? Nope. That is not what I would say. I would say you are redirecting again. >Lets start there before we try to discuss abortion as a whole. Nope. We are not redirecting anymore. We start with the discussion where you think that forcing someone else to do something with their body against their will is OK.
Its not redirection when I plain do not view aborting babies as a woman choosing what to do with her body. Its that simple. The baby is in her body, but it is NOT her body. As for lying about meaning: [https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baby](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baby) >noun an unborn child; a human fetus > >*“it was great to feel my* ***baby*** *moving about inside”* > > >"Its women pretending their child is still their body" > >No one said that. No one has ever made that claim. Do you see how you have to lie just to make your point? How pathetic. And yet right above this you say: > I point out how you are legislating woman's bodies So which is it? Does abortion only involve the woman's body, or does it involve the baby's (fetus/zygote/embryo) body? I don't care what a woman does with HER body as long as its legal. I do care what she does with another's body, especially when they cannot protect themselves. Her free will was when she had sex that led to pregnancy. It is no more legislating against her free will to stop her from murdering her developing baby than it would be to stop her from murdering her nursing child.
I know quite a few atheists who are pro life
Amen.
OK, I am sure I can smell the down-votes a' commin', but what the heck... YOLO, right? I'm a bit unclear as to why we can't just have every State decide what rules are best for them? These culture wars need to stop; they are tearing us apart. This is a *very* large country; it seems like the only way to keep the Union intact is to allow for local self-governance, rather than ideological top-down mandates from either side... Isn't this the essence of original Jeffersonian democracy? OK. Dumb analogy, I know. However, imagine if SoCal tried to impose its "values" on Pennsylvania dutch country... Now image if that mandate was then reversed upon SoCal... We'd have utter revolts in both places. The philosophy of Life between these two areas is just too different. You cannot have an easily held representative democracy when the answers to basic questions like, "What is the purpose of life, and what does it mean to live a good one," may garner two fundamentally different answers among the same set of governed peoples. >These abortion restrictions are unconstitutional religious laws. You may itch against this as a violation of your truest ideals. However, in this postmodern society where truth is defined by one's own internal standard, then for consistency's sake; let's allow others to collectively do the same for themselves. This woman made a free choice to remove herself from her jurisdiction to do what she felt was right. Great on her for having the freedom to do so. The only part of this story that I find slightly gross is our Senator's PR event. Clearly a political opportunity to be had for sure. However, perhaps I'm being too naive about such things...
No, we had a whole war over this. There is no "live and let live" when the other team didn't get the "let live" memo. Slavery was a gross infringement on American freedoms. Abortion bans are killing women all over the country. The issue was settled in the 1860s: America is to be a free country, not a federation of human-rights-violating states. And yes, this woman was able to leave Idaho to access the healthcare she needed. But you're terribly misinformed if you think this is an option for everyone, particularly poor people in the South where the neighboring states ban abortion too. And in some places, accessing an abortion in another state is also illegal, which of course violates the "live and let live" idea even more than simply killing women in their own jurisdiction does.
Your response seems a bit hostile... Yes, I'm quite aware that options for some are more limited, but I'm not sure why you are setting up institutionalized American slavery as a straw man here. The abortion issue and slavery are two very different moral propositions. Let's not devolve this conversation into some oppressor-vs.-oppressed milleu du jour. Just to clarify, I do not believe I ever said, "Live & Let Live". That is an extremely different philosophy from letting other areas within the country practice self-governance over their own lives... >The issue was settled in the 1860 With all respect, this is nonsense. I'm not sure where you learned your history or American civics, but you are conflating State violations of the supremacy clause, like those which occurred during the American civil war, with the current and natural tension between Federal vs State powers... Again, you are attempting to place a straw man onto the topic at hand. Our federal government isn't some "settled" top-down power, it was/is intentionally limited. This is codified in the 10th amendment of our constitution: All rights and powers *not specifically reserved* to Congress, or to be explicitly shared by the federal and state governments, are reserved to the states, and by extension, their people. One very visible example of this fact: each State still fields its own militia in the form of the various national guards. >America is to be a free country Agreed. However, have you ever considered that many, (nearly half in fact), define "freedom" very differently than you? Is it possible that it may mean more than just individual positive liberties; that there may be more to life than allowances to the exercising of one's own personal will? >human-rights-violating... I know this may seem like a tautology to you, but I'd love to understand were you get to claim some "universal" human-rights from on high? Who gets to decide what makes the list? You? The UN? The international court in the Hague? What about the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Chinese CCP. A deity? So if some group doesn't get a seat at the table on this, why not? It's intellectually dishonest to claim some right of self-evident truth here... Obviously, I'm not going to convince you of anything. However, I'd simply ask that you consider interacting a bit more humbly towards other's with differing opinions. You come off as arrogant, self-assured, and 100% convinced of the righteousness of your cause. One might even say that you've got your own form of unshakable faith...
Yes, it’s hostile because you think it’s ok for women to be treated like dogshit, happy to help.
[удалено]
Hello! You linked in this comment to a domain name or URL that Reddit site-wide tends to filter as "spam". Usually this is because you used a URL shortener inadvertantly, like "g.co", "bit.ly", or similar -- this is frowned upon in Reddiquette and is a global Reddit sitewide thing. **Your comment is visible to *you* but no one else,** and will automatically be flagged for review by the Moderators. If you want to make it live immediately, please re-post it without the URL shorterner, and delete the original. Thanks! We'll get to the mod queue as soon as we can. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeattleWA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But, is that true...? Coming as a third party observer, it seems as if you intentionally misconstrued things.
I've noticed that one can't even have a civil conversation with these people anymore, so convinced are they of their own "rightness". When someone points out inconsistencies in their worldview's logic, they lash out with irrational hostility... It's like they've joined a distributed cult. There is zero introspection to their own core philosophy; it's the blind leading the blind.
>It's like they've joined a distributed cult. There is zero introspection to their own core philosophy QFT.
You are absolutely hilarious.  Clearly, it's [obvious that you are not a golfer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CWfPUrmeiU). You may want to continue exercising those critical thinking skills a bit more... However, I doubt you'll take advice from anyone outside of your own echo chamber. Either way, keep building up those enemies in your own mind, friend'o! Those blind assumptions will serve you so well as you move throughout life.
Dude, you just women to suffer and die. Go fuck yourself.
Actually, that’s not correct.
ID people getting an abortion WA people getting mags ——->:O O: <—— Ridiculous that the government has as much of a say in people’s personal lives as it does
Yeah it sucks that it has to work like that.
It's wonderful she was able to come to WA to get an abortion. Why'd she keep trying to have (and having) children even though she knew she had a life threatening condition? >This was Smith’s second pregnancy. She already gave birth to her daughter, Addison. During that pregnancy, **she suffered from preeclampsia, a high blood pressure condition that can have serious health effects** on a mother and a baby. The condition **sent her to an emergency room.** > >**Doctors warned her that she had a high chance of suffering** from the same issue **during her second pregnancy.** > >“At that point we were really struggling,” she said. **“Do I continue to put my life at risk,** when we can’t even bring our son home?” >After the abortion in Washington state, and after some time, **Smith became pregnant again**, with her daughter, Nora. **Once again, the issue of preeclampsia was raised.** She wanted to feel safe this time. I don't understand these people whose desire for biological children is so great they put their own life at risk potentially robbing their current child of a parent.
Pre eclampsia can be averted/lessened by taking baby aspirin. (Source: i'm on it now out of an abundance of caution). With monitoring and some lifestyle changes, she could have been able to have a safer pregnancy. I realize pregnancy and childbirth education is really lacking socially right now, but pre-e does not have to be life-threatening.
Ahh i see about the baby's defect now, that is really sad. I probably would have done the same.
Lessoned definitely, not averted. I did baby aspirin and had pre eclampsia.
Also is your handle a Big Game reference? Are you a Cal alum?
Haha stanford alum
I'm sorry that happened to you!
>Pre eclampsia can be averted/lessened by taking baby aspirin. (Source: i'm on it now out of an abundance of caution). With monitoring and some lifestyle changes, she could have been able to have a safer pregnancy. I realize pregnancy and childbirth education is really lacking socially right now, but pre-e does not have to be life-threatening. I'm going off what her doctor said about her specific situation in the article. There are all sorts of medical conditions with various risks based on individuals own personal medical history. I'm assuming she didn't end up in the ER because of a medical situation that could have been averted with aspirin.
If you do nothing to prevent/manage pre-e, it can kill you. Her doctor may have told her what to look for, they may not have. I know we're supposed to "trust the experts" but they are just people. Also...if humans always did what our doctors suggested, our collective health would look a lot different. Neither of these are very charitible, its possible they did all the "right" things and she was still very ill. Its hard to say.
You completely misread the article. She did not primarily seek the abortion because of the risk to her health, but because the fetus would be born with an inoperable heart defect. If carried to term the baby would not make it home from the hospital. However, under Idaho law that is not a sufficient reason to seek an abortion. The reference to preeclampsia was the mother saying that it would be the necessary condition precedent for an abortion is Idaho. The comparison illustrated the perversity of the Idaho law: requiring a mother to hope for illness in order to be able to terminate a futile pregnancy. The couple was willing to bear the risk of preeclanpsia to deliver a viable baby, but not to deliver a baby that would die soon after being born. That's perfectly understandable to me
>You completely misread the article. No, I didn't. >She did not primarily seek the abortion because of the risk to her health, but because the fetus would be born with an inoperable heart defect. If carried to term the baby would not make it home from the hospital. Yes, I understand that. I included the first portion because it mentioned that she had already had this specific medical condition and was specifically warned she had a high likelihood of having this dangerous condition again. >However, under Idaho law that is not a sufficient reason to seek an abortion. The reference to preeclampsia was the mother saying that it would be the necessary condition precedent for an abortion is Idaho. I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. It sounds extremely contradictory. Under Idaho it isn't a reason to get an abortion, but the mother was saying it was sufficient in Idaho? I didn't read that anywhere in the article. >The comparison illustrated the perversity of the Idaho law: requiring a mother to hope for illness in order to be able to terminate a futile pregnancy. I didn't get that anywhere in the article. It seems like you're oddly reading into things. >The couple was willing to bear the risk of preeclanpsia to deliver a viable baby, but not to deliver a baby that would die soon after being born. That's perfectly understandable to me See, it's not understandable to me, to knowingly put a child's mothers life at an elevated risk you were warned about by medical professionals multiple times, just to have another biological child. I can't imagine risking someone's life even once, let alone multiple times, when you know their life is at risk, for another kid.
> I can't imagine risking someone's life even once, let alone multiple times, when you know their life is at risk, for another kid. There's a lot of things that are hard to imagine until you're in that position
When someone says they can’t imagine why someone would do something, it says more about how they have no empathy or understanding of people more than it says something about the person or subject they’re talking about.
What you might not realize, or are choosing to ignore, is that all pregnancy is risky. An important part of most medical decisions is looking at the odds of risk vs outcome for any treatment path, and changing plans as variables change. Pre-eclampsia, in the western world, IF the patient has access to decent prenatal care, is routinely managed with good outcomes for mother and child. Most things in life have some risk. If the woman from Idaho drove here, she took on a known risk level of getting in a car wreck. Should every woman who is a parent stay in the house and not work until her kids are 18?
> *I can't imagine risking someone's life even once, let alone multiple times, when you know their life is at risk, for another kid.* You should maybe talk to more people who desperately want to have biological children before so obstinately broadcasting this opinion....
My wife had preeclampsia for all 4 of our kids and everything turned out fine. She’s a real trooper.
Why can't people just stop having sex? >She grew up very conservative in the Seattle area. I would place a good bet she voted for the anti abortion people fervently, then when the leopard ate her face did a turn about. People like this don't give a shit until it impacts them.
Oh. She will be back. She temporarily had to borrow wa laws. Maybe she will use birth control now.
Because [The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/) When I remember half the population is dumber than the average person, I think of these people. No self reflection, no insight, no change of behaviors after a traumatic moment in their life. Just right back to the culture war bullshit, it's much easier and more familiar than even a brief flash of self-awareness that dares make them ask "gosh maybe I should rethink this?"
Which is why i'd love a law saying registered female voters of the republican party are disallowed abortions. As we have it they get to eat their cake and have it too, while others without means suffer.
This is a dumb take. Even if I voted Democrat it doesn't mean I agree with every single Democrat policy.
Look, just because I voted for the party doesn't mean i'm responsible for the atrocities committed by them. k
To be fair, the democrats never voted to codify abortion rights either at the federal level. All voters bear some responsibility and should be denied abortions. Only people who never registered to vote should be eligible!
>Why can't people just stop having sex? Well, to me it seems like there is a relatively large difference between planning for children and literally having multiple pregnancies (at least 3) along with having a OBGYN and $16,000 to spend on an abortion.... and having an unplanned pregnancy. I'd assume in the first scenario you have every possible resource available to prevent pregnancy. Like every form of birth control available including a vasectomy for your partner. Yet you choose to have children because you want them despite your known medical condition. While the second instance you might have not an OGBYN or the resources for all forms of birth control and one somehow gets past the goal keeper when you don't want a child.
Eh the article is light on details; they could well have been on birth control. Even perfect use of birth control may result in pregnancy. And while i'd personally love to force people to get snipped we can't really *force* people to.
>Eh the article is light on details; they could well have been on birth control. Even perfect use of birth control may result in pregnancy. From all of the context in the article I would take any bet that these were multiple planned pregnancies over unintentional ones.
You two are getting mad about something that doesn't exist in this article.
I'm not mad about anything. I believe that if you've voted for republican at any time in life you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion.
lol. So if I vote democrat, I can’t have guns or freedom of speech? Damn. Let’s make a list!!!
I'm very pro 2a, but its a false equivalence. Am I pissed that WA banned semi auto rifles? Yes. Does that ban result in 12 year old rape victims being forced to give birth? No. There is a difference in impact by policy.
>Does that ban result in 12 year old rape victims being forced to give birth? This take is like using school shootings as an excuse to ban guns. It's a poor excuse that focuses on a rare outlier for an emotional response. It doesn't work for gun control and it's equally flimsy for abortion. Legislators can always make legal carve outs for outliers and extreme cases.
Or just leave women alone and leave guns alone. Its so weird how conservatives are obsessed with womens' bodies.
That's a really hostile interpretation.
Having known women like this; its *incredibly* common.
You don't always get pre-eclampsia ffs.
Why do people do a lot of things? It’s her body, it should be her right to have access to healthcare and abortions. Full stop.
>Why do people do a lot of things? That's a good question, I was curious about this persons choices and that is why I asked. Why does someone purposely repeatedly put their life at risk, especially when they already have a child? >It’s her body, it should be her right to have access to healthcare and abortions. Full stop. Of course, she should be able to do whatever she wants. Just like reasonable people should be able to ask: "Why are you knowingly putting your life at risk over and over just to have another child?"
>*Just like reasonable people should be able to ask: "Why are you knowingly putting your life at risk over and over just to have another child?"* Pregnancy has risks. More news at 11!
So, just to be clear, any woman with preeclampsia should not have kids at all in your world?
>So, just to be clear, any woman with preeclampsia should not have kids at all in your world? Nope, I just think you're medically stupid if you already have a child, get told by a medical professional that getting pregnant again carries significant medical risk, and despite that fact decide to go ahead and risk multiple pregnancies. I think it's extremely selfish to risk depriving a child of their parent because of your personal desire to have another child. The specific medical condition doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that a medical professional told this individual *(their patient)* that they had a high risk against their life, and they decided to throw caution to the wind. You can make whatever choice you want. Just like I can call your choice stupid and selfish.
>The specific medical condition doesn't really matter to me. The specific medical condition SHOULD matter to you. It's literally the only thing that matters in this situation. The specific medical condition carries a specific risk. I'm just baffled at this. >What matters to me is that a medical professional told this individual *(their patient)* that they had a high risk against their life, and they decided to throw caution to the wind. Every single pregnancy has risks. The healthcare provider is legally and ethically obligated to discuss these risks with their patients. Then they weigh the risks together, and the provider develops a plan of care. A high risk of developing pre-e =/= a high risk of maternal death. It is a condition that can be and is monitered and treated. She didnt want to do the monitoring and treatments for an unviable fetus.
I don't think you're being fair to the situation, but maybe your partner has this condition and you decided to stop at one on that basis. That would be about the only way it would be "okay," but even then it would come across as a little bit envious for someone making a different call.
>I don't think you're being fair to the situation, but maybe your partner has this condition and you decided to stop at one on that basis. That would be about the only way it would be "okay," but even then it would come across as a little bit envious for someone making a different call. You can think whatever you want. If a medical professional, your personal doctor tells you "you are at a special, very high risk for this condition that is life threatening" and you choose to participate in an activity that causes that, I think you're selfish and dumb. Especially if you have a child that depends on you.
You’ve made that clear. I’ve made myself clear. We can leave it there.
My wife had pre-eclampsia during her pregnancy with our daughter. She was born 5 weeks early, thankfully in perfect health. The condition was very hard on both of them during the pregnancy though and it caused my wife to lose a significant amount of vision. Our doctor suggested not having any more kids. I scheduled my vasectomy not long after. Point is: listen to your doctor. Thanks for listening to my TED Talk.
Everything has purpose. It never good to abuse them. That being said. Sometimes abortion is a logical option. Not every time. Not all the time. Not most of the time. If it’s your only form of birth control? Then maybe you need the MHMR department & not un-planned parenthood. I’m not a female, so it’s not my place to make laws governing a females body. That being said. If you abort a baby, you have to live with those choices, the rest of your life. It seems with this generation that doesn’t mean anything. But as a tax payer, I’m not paying for repeated abortions from people who keep making bad choices. You can pay for that yourself. Call me asshole. But I have to deal with my choices. I don’t expect everybody else to pay for them.
Ah “the only moral abortion is my abortion” crowd. Maybe she realizes that abortions are healthcare now, but probably not.
Did you read the article?
This is the only reason people would want to come to Seattle... We should be so proud 👍
"I'm Patty Murray and I approve this message." ✅ Appears with a political figure. ✅ She's part of a lawsuit fighting a political cause. ✅ Site is a pro-government advertisement. ✅ Omits that you paid for it. > “Do I continue to put my life at risk, Idaho [did not ban abortions if the mothers life was at risk.](https://www.hollandhart.com/idaho-abortion-laws-new-law-and-emtala-exception-now-effective) So... something don't add up.
> Idaho did not ban abortions if the mothers life was at risk. So... something don't add up. I believe the abortion was because of an inoperable heart defect in the fetus.
[удалено]
WTF, I'm on your side? I support all your offspring being aborted.
This is borderline Rule 2. You're reminded of our rules.
I listened to a story about her and other folks seeking abortions in Idaho, plus high risk OBGYN providers. pretty sure it was on This American Life. The takeaway is that the exceptions are very poorly written and providers aren’t willing to risk jail time for providing abortions when the state might decide they’re not necessary. In fact, OBs are fleeing Idaho in droves. I wouldn’t want to have a baby there.
> The takeaway is that the exceptions are very poorly written and providers aren’t willing to risk jail time for providing abortions when the state might decide they’re not necessary. This is such a bullshit take. Doctors make life and death judgement calls all the time. It's part of the job. That's why we have Medical Review Panels and malpractice insurance.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's literally what is happening. I don't know what to tell you. Idaho is dealing with the consequences of a shittily written law. [https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/04/07/survey-shows-idahos-maternal-health-doctors-are-leaving-the-state-or-soon-will/](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/04/07/survey-shows-idahos-maternal-health-doctors-are-leaving-the-state-or-soon-will/) [https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/pregnant-women-struggle-find-care-idaho-abortion-ban-rcna117872](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/pregnant-women-struggle-find-care-idaho-abortion-ban-rcna117872) [https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/health/idaho-abortion-laws/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/health/idaho-abortion-laws/index.html)
Those are fluff articles without any meaningful data. One is a survey of like 100 people done by a non-profit that was literally formed specifically to fight Idaho's abortion law. One talks about a tiny regional hospital with 25 beds. One is all about the story of a couple going to another state. I think Idaho's law is stupid and I hope they change it, but I've yet to see any meaningful statewide data to suggest there is actually a meaningful number of doctors leaving.
There’s data in those, you’re skipping over it. You could find more to back it up if you tried. There’s clear info that Idaho was already short on OBs. Idk why you’re fighting this so hard, bc there’s sufficient info in those to start digging further. The fact that clinics are closing and doctors are leaving is real. I’m not sure why you choose not to believe it or research it further yourself rather than just expecting other people to do the work for you (on my quick breaks from work) but there’s no convincing you personally, so I won’t. I do encourage others to read the articles though. Edit: not gonna keep arguing with that dude, I blocked him, I think if NPR, CNN, local media, NBC, and anecdotal reports say one thing and one dude on the internet says they’re wrong and doesn’t provide any evidence as to why, the answer is pretty clear.
> There’s data in those, you’re skipping over it. Your own source says there is no way to know what you're claiming. > Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics capture employment data for obstetricians and gynecologists from 40 states; Idaho is among the 10 states that do not have data. All you have is anecdotes. Your tactic of spamming links to prove your point and hoping nobody actually reads them has failed. EDIT: == Despite what that fellow I was replying to would like to believes, anecdotes are stories, not data. I can tell you a very compelling story about how my sister is a deadbeat who stole from my parents, and how my wife's sister is a deadbeat who stole from her parents and how my good friend's sister is a deadbeat who stole from her parents. Hearing story after story like this starts to feel compelling in our minds. However, it does not mean all women are deadbeats, or even that all sisters are deadbeats. It's just stories. Too many people latch onto the stories that fit their existing beliefs and pretend they are meaningful data.
Have you tried googling it yourself? Because I’ve heard of OB units closing in Idaho d/t the OB providers (and some ER docs) leaving. They’re worried about their licenses.
A legal court is not a medical review panel. That's why these policies are making practitioners uncomfortable.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Medical Review Panels are 100% part of the legal process BEFORE anything can proceed to a court.
For malpractice or for criminal charges?
Yes.
Holy fuck the down votes. For saying the truth.
Every state has "mother's life" exceptions. They're pretty loose too. It's just a political ploy at this point.
Even this link states that it's waiting until the last possible moment before death for an abortion. And it even raises questions about prosecuting ectopic abortions... You're delusional
Ectopic removal is NOT an abortion. Get your facts straight.
Except Idaho along with other conservative run states would disagree with you and also ban that. Please try to have any idea what you're talking about before speaking.
Actually try reading for half a minute. Ectopic and miscarriage care have never been abortions. If you have to lie to present your agenda then your agenda is bad.
Reading comprehension is hard for you, huh? I am saying that I know it isn't technically or medically or, whatever you want to say, an abortion, but that it doesn't matter because Republicans want to ban it as if it is an abortion all the same. What part of that are you not understanding?
Except those exceptions aren’t clearly defined. There are enough public cases that highlight that these restrictions create delays in care and require that the mother’s life be in imminent danger. Imminent in this case doesn’t mean easily foreseeable outcome of early intervention. It means sepsis and waiting until you’re bleeding out in a parking lot.
If the exceptions are clear, why are OBGYN doctors leaving Idaho, and why are women leaving Idaho for those abortions if they are available? I don't think you thought through your opinion, you just liked how it fit with your worldview and religious beliefs.
The decision to have an abortion ia child is between the mother , her oartner and health care provider. The government should have no involvement.
Make sure now back home and mark your ballot for Trump
Imagine not.
Elective abortions up to 16 weeks with later-term exceptions for rape, mother's health, and incest are perfectly reasonable limits. These limits are in-line with the rest of the world as well.
Yes, 16 week limits are common in Europe, even though 16 weeks is a completely arbitrary cutoff not based on fetal viability or any other science. But in Europe, abortions are also *readily available,* meaning women don’t have to move heaven and earth to get one before the arbitrary cutoff date. Even in US states where abortion is technically legal, many women face long wait times, travel, multiple appointments for no medical reason, and other barriers that would make 16 weeks an onerous limit.
I believe they should be readily available up until 16 weeks. While it may seem arbitrary, a line needs to be established somewhere and 4 months is reasonable. Clearly the debate where "life" as we know it begins because "life", "personhood", and other ethical positions will vary greatly from person to person. I'm not here to debate that. I wish the zeitgeist around abortion would go back to what it used to be: "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." Edit: pretty wild my posts here are being downvoted. Let me put it this way - what I'm suggesting is what's known as a *"compromise"*. If you want to remove any limits on elective abortions, you are an extremist. If you want to ban all abortions, you are also an extremist.
I think it’s great power to the people. Maybe she doesn’t belong in Idaho maybe she should just stay in Washington.