Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[ozso]

Because it’s something that would have been a routine easily accessible medical procedure that now requires out of state travel due to badly written law.

So women aren't dying because of this, they're just having to travel out of state in the meantime. That is quite inconvenient (and I don't mean that sarcastically), but I've heard of medial procedures and even long term treatment that requires going out of state and in some cases even out of country, so it's not entirely unprecedented.

 

[Desk trauma]

So women aren't dying because of this, they're just having to travel out of state in the meantime. That is quite inconvenient (and I don't mean that sarcastically), but I've heard of medial procedures and even long term treatment that required going out of state and in some cases even out of country, so it's not entirely unprecedented.

Which of those procedures require that travel due to state law making them illegal?

 

[ozso]

Which of those procedures require that travel due to state law making them illegal?

Probably several when it comes to having to go out of the country to get whatever done. Perhaps even out of state in some cases. But the main thing I'm seeing is, it isn't a matter of women dying. That women are dying has been the primary protest I've seen, not women having to travel.

Also doctors often refuse to do a procedure if there's a chance of liability involved and say to find another doctor. Did every doctor in Texas refuse or just a couple?

 

[Desk trauma]

Oh look, the options for implementing something I was assured was never gonna happen are being looked into:

Fourteen GOP legislators warned Lyft that they’d seek to ban companies that pay for abortions from doing business in Texas.

 

[chilehed]

Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

*Sigh*

No, she wasn't denied an abortion, because the procedure in question was not an abortion. Everyone knew this prior to Roe vs. Wade.

Moral actions that produce two effects need to be evaluated under the understanding of the principle of double effect:

1. The action must be either morally good or neutral.
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect; the bad effect can in no way be intended and must be avoided if possible.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in proportion to the bad effect.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube or in some other location. A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube and thus there exists a danger to both the life of the mother and the child.

Removing the fallopian tube is considered in accordance with the principle of double effect:

1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb was reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Very unlikely to happen, Abortion becoming a states issue I can see, but birth control and condom bans? Really unlikely.

about as unlikely as your Democrat representatives get their way and ban guns.

About as unlikely as a washed up game show host becoming president?
About as unlikely as Roe v Wade actually getting overturned after 50 years as "settled law"?

"Unlikely" is the new normal. Let's not take the status quo for granted.

 

[ozso]

*Sigh*

No, she wasn't denied an abortion, because the procedure in question was not an abortion.

It's not even really a pregnancy either. The term "ectopic pregnancy" is rather misleading in my opinion.

Everyone knew this prior to Roe vs. Wade.

Moral actions that produce two effects need to be evaluated under the understanding of the principle of double effect:

1. The action must be either morally good or neutral.
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect; the bad effect can in no way be intended and must be avoided if possible.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in proportion to the bad effect.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube or in some other location. A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube and thus there exists a danger to both the life of the mother and the child.

Removing the fallopian tube is considered in accordance with the principle of double effect:

1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb was reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.

 

[Desk trauma]

Very unlikely to happen, Abortion becoming a states issue I can see, but birth control and condom bans? Really unlikely.

So unlike that the Louisiana house is already debating a bill that would do just that even before Roe has been officially over turned.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Very unlikely to happen, Abortion becoming a states issue I can see, but birth control and condom bans? Really unlikely.

about as unlikely as your Democrat representatives get their way and ban guns.

Republicans are talking about it.

Trump Endorsed Her. Now She Wants to Use State Power to 'Crush' the Left and Impose 'God's Moral Order'

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.html

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use

Missouri legislature may limit access to birth control after Roe falls: ‘Anything’s on the table’

 

[ozso]

I'm sure from a secular point of view society is in grave danger.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So women aren't dying because of this, they're just having to travel out of state in the meantime. That is quite inconvenient (and I don't mean that sarcastically), but I've heard of medial procedures and even long term treatment that requires going out of state and in some cases even out of country, so it's not entirely unprecedented.

Which means Texas isn't outlawing abortion, they've just made it inaccessible to those who don't have the means...

No wonder their law is so popular with the GOP.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, these are separate issues. A woman seeks emergent care for what is diagnosed as an ectopic pregnancy that is unviable and potentially fatal for the mother. This woman was denied care and fortunately was able to leave the state and receive it there. It is a medical situation that should have never had a question mark but due to a very bad law she could have died. Bringing up 600,000 abortions to justify her potential death is disgusting.

Thats not even remotely what I said and I couldn’t care less about what you think about it.

 

[Desk trauma]

I'm sure from a secular point of view society is in grave danger.

Not society, fertile women in a few states.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No I say that people are putting words in my mouth when they call me out on what they came up with, rather than what I actually said.



Nope. I said that a multitude of deaths occur via abortion, which I consider unacceptable. You took that and reworded it. Proving that you are putting words in my mouth. Unless that is you can quote me were I said "the deaths of women are acceptable losses". Do you ever rebut someone by quoting them? Or do you always just liberally paraphrase them?

Exactly, which is what we’ve come to expect from people who are incapable of having an honest discussion. All they know is how to discredit those who oppose their views by lies and misrepresentation.

 

[Yttrium]

Seems to me that's just pretending an unborn person isn't really a person. It's just a blob. Only when birth occurs, then presto chango, the blob suddenly becomes a person.

It isn't legally a person. I think you mean that it's just pretending an unborn human life isn't really a human life. And there are certainly some who do just that.

It's always a human life. It's not legally a person until birth. It starts off as a little blob and gradually gains more characteristics over the course of the pregnancy. So where's the cutoff point for abortion? Whenever we as a society decides it is, and that can be different for different states.

 

[chilehed]

It's always a human life. It's not legally a person until birth. It starts off as a little blob and gradually gains more characteristics over the course of the pregnancy. So where's the cutoff point for abortion? Whenever we as a society decides it is, and that can be different for different states.

In other words: there is no such thing as unalienable human rights because no human being has any rights at all before an arbitrary point determined by the whim of the State. Thus, all rights are mere gifts of the State.

 

[Yttrium]

In other words: there is no such thing as unalienable human rights because no human being has any rights at all before an arbitrary point determined by the whim of the State. Thus, all rights are mere gifts of the State.

Yep.

Keeping in mind that the state is formed by a consensus of the people.

 

[Jamdoc]

That's how it is under the law at present, even though many people, including myself, think otherwise. But you are going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already believe it that a zygote is a person.

Plenty of abortions aren't done on "zygotes" in fact unless we're talking morning after pills which is not an abortion but an emergency contraceptive (the woman is not pregnant until there's an implantation in the uterus, which is how such contraceptives work... prevent implantation) most aren't on zygotes, they're either embryo or fetal stage where we're no longer talking about a "ball of cells" but a body.
Particularly a fetus is unquestionably a human body.

Mississippi's law that triggered the Roe v Wade case in the supreme court was a ban at 15 weeks.
that's fetus stage, and Satan worshipers and witches lose their mind over not being able to kill a fetus that is around the time of quickening. Satanists even call it a demonic ritual sacrament that's part of their religious practices.... which is what many pastors have been claiming that abortion is modern version of child sacrifice to Moloch... Sorry but it's hard to have any sympathy.
if you're really only in support of aborting "ball of cells" surely you'd be on board with the so called heartbeat laws at 6-8 weeks right?

 

[Jamdoc]

About as unlikely as a washed up game show host becoming president?
About as unlikely as Roe v Wade actually getting overturned after 50 years as "settled law"?

"Unlikely" is the new normal. Let's not take the status quo for granted.

So unlike that the Louisiana house is already debating a bill that would do just that even before Roe has been officially over turned.

Republicans are talking about it.

Trump Endorsed Her. Now She Wants to Use State Power to 'Crush' the Left and Impose 'God's Moral Order'

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.html

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use

Missouri legislature may limit access to birth control after Roe falls: ‘Anything’s on the table’

Because of the inherently interstate nature of such laws it'll bring the supreme court up again and in this case they'd find no defensible reason to allow states to ban interstate travel for any such reason.

speaking on that someone should challenge laws from California, etc that prevent you from bringing a firearm bought in another state into California.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because of the inherently interstate nature of such laws it'll bring the supreme court up again and in this case they'd find no defensible reason to allow states to ban interstate travel for any such reason.

Why would that stop them for ruling in your favor anyway?

speaking on that someone should challenge laws from California, etc that prevent you from bringing a firearm bought in another state into California.

Well now, that they would stop; firearms being a sacred thing. ...