A Texas Woman Died After Waiting 40 Hours for Miscarriage Care
Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.
The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.
But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”
For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.
Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.
So... Not the same case as a fetus at all, right?
If you were hooked up to someone using your kidneys who then died, I bet you wouldn't want the doctors to have to wait until you had complications from sepsis before disconnecting you.
Because that's the analogous argument. You keep trying to reframe it, but we know what happens when you put these kinds of restrictions on abortion: women die.
You can pretend otherwise, but the facts are clear.
I wouldn't "want" that, and besides, the law would have allowed that in this case. This is a simple medical mistake, the likes of which was the third leading cause of death in 2018.
And far more human beings die when abortions are legal. You can "reframe" that however you want it, but that's a fact. Unless you'd like to argue that fetuses/babies aren't human? Or are you going to apply an arbitrary standard of "personhood" to protect your genocidal ideas?
You can call abortion access a genocide, but that doesn't make it true.
You can try to reframe the issue, as many reactionaries do, but you should be aware that the Nazis also restricted abortion for "aryans":
It's about controlling women for patriarchal purposes, and you're helping that cause.
How is killing millions of innocent people every year not genocide? If they're not people, then can you define "person"? Dehumanizing people to justify killing them was a tactic the Nazis used, too. It's a favorite of people who protest in favor of abortion.
Leave it to reactionaries to confuse healthcare with genocide.
I've already told you that autonomous people should get to choose what to do with their bodies. That's clearly not a value that you hold, and want to give a fetus extra rights above and beyond the person upon whose body they depend.
You wouldn't need to give a reason to disconnect the person attached to you by the kidney; it's your body to decide to share or not.
You can try to reframe the issue, but the facts are clear.
Tell me, how is killing innocent people healthcare? If a human being isn't a person, then what is? If killing innocent people isn't wrong, then why do we outlaw murder?
So born babies aren't people either? They're not very autonomous. Nor are comatose people.
You're reframing the issue to justify killing millions of people every year. Why? It's not like those lives magically appear in a faraway land on earth once they're ended in the United States.
Do you think you should need to get permission to disconnect from the kidney machine? Or do you think that it's your choice to share your body or not?
I know why you keep avoiding this question: it shows that you think your bodily autonomy is more important than a woman's.
You can try to reframe the issue, but the facts are clear.
It's a good thing we have dialysis machines so this entire argument is moot, along with organ donations. If the entire premise of the argument is nonsensical, then so would any response to it. Millions of people dying every year is a thing that really happens. I take it you won't deny they're people, but somehow it's okay to kill them?
Also. "reactionary" was a title used by people like Mao Zedong to justify persecuting and killing innocent people, so that's a little clue about how you really feel on the topic of murder.
Avoiding the question is it's own cowardly answer.
Reactionaries always try to reframe things exactly backwards.
I should think it's more cowardly to insult people without explaining why they're wrong. Are you so deep in you own pro-genocide propaganda that you can't even articulate why murder is wrong? And if it's so cowardly to not respond, then why are you not responding to my questions? Are you calling yourself a coward? If so, I mean, you said it, not me.
I have just as much ground to call you a reactionary over your reframing of genocide as "healthcare," which is apparently such an obvious position that you don't know how to defend it.
I have explained it; remember how you bravely avoided the question that would unequivocally prove your "principle" wrong?
And reactionary has a meaning; it's very reactionary of you to try and redefine it exactly backwards.
You can try to reframe it, but the facts are clear.
So not answering a meaningless and irrelevant question about ethics is less cowardly than not being able to explain why murder is wrong or why some human beings are not people? If I brought up a question about using magic to kill gnomes, would you take it seriously?
Roe v. Wade was the status quo for decades, and it sounds like you want to return to it. Therefore, if I'm a reactionary, you're a reactionary too.
Oh, and how did Mao feel about alleged "reactionaries"?
Oh... I certainly don't want that for anyone.
Your surface-level understanding of political philosophy is matched only by your amateur legal credentials.
Gotta say: it's hilarious how far you've gone to avoid answering a simple question that would expose the stupidity of your argument. So brave.
Now go away, you're boring and predictable.
They're not killing people, that's how
Projection, as usual
So if they're not people, then what are they? Can you define what a person is without it being completely arbitrary?
Says the guy calling me a Nazi because I hate genocide.
Fetus. Could grow into a person if nothing goes wrong and the mother wants it to, could end up as a really heavy period after a week. Welcome to basic biology, since you missed it in school
I didn't call you anything, learn to read. Also: not a genocide. Your kind best stop trying to dilute the value of that word by applying it incorrectly
How is a fetus not a person? Every human being is a person. Sticking with an extremely broad definition of person is the only way to prevent a slippery slope towards justifying killing people further and further along in development. Trying to call certain human beings not people is a genocidal tactic.
You can't actually be so stupid as to not be able to spot the difference between a clump of cells and a born human, so don't pretend to be.
Things that might become other things are not treated as though they are fundamentally the thing they might become.
No, it's not. Fetus isn't a person, it requires parasitization of an already existing person to continue existing, it is very much not the same as a born human. The only people who try to equate the two are weirdos like you.
I didn't do that either, learn to read usernames
First off, I'm sorry I mistook you for the other person. I'll take back those claims.
Second, we are all "clumps of cells." A fetus just so happens to be a really, really small one at a particular stage of development.
Third, a parasite is, by definition, a member of a different species than its host. Therefore, a fetus is not a parasite.
Fourth, almost everyone on earth depends on other people to continue existing. The ones who don't are hardcore survivalists. Are they the only ones who get a right to life?
Maybe you are, you're certainly showing the intelligence level of one, but most people are far more than that. They're lived experiences, personalities, and all the other shit. By your logic a caterpillar is a butterfly, and that's silly
That's a link to a cancer website, and it doesn't even load, so the attempt at Cherry-Picking is extremely poor, do better with your fallacies or you'll bore me
parasite. noun. par·a·site ˈpar-ə-ˌsīt. : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host - well wouldja looky there, doesn't require a different species at all and, in fact, applies to a fetus too!
Got any more bad points to try and make because you don't understand basic biology or are you ready to admit youre ignorant and just go learn some shit? Nobody will be mean to you for admitting your ignorance and becoming a better person. Shit, we'd actually probably respect you then, unlike now