Texas woman granted, then denied abortion on medical grounds

[Lilith7]

This seems a straightforward case where an abortion should be given as soon as possible; this woman is likely to lose the ability to have children if an abortion is denied. 

That she's likely to now be denied that & have to suffer throughout a tragic pregnancy which could end her abiity to have children, shows very clearly that this isn't about 'the sanctitiy of life' but is instead about controlling women.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/preg...-105522411


[b]"AUSTIN, Texas -- Kate Cox, a mother of two in Texas, became pregnant again in August but soon after learned devasting news: Her baby has a fatal condition and is likely to either be stillborn or die shortly after birth.[/b]
The tragic circumstances have thrust Cox, 31, into the center of an unprecedented challenge over abortion bans that have altered the landscape for women in the U.S. A Texas judge gave Cox permission this week to receive an abortion, but the state's highest court put that decision on hold Friday night.
Whether Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, can legally receive an abortion under narrow exceptions to the state's ban is now in limbo while the Texas Supreme Court considers her case. The court, which is made up of nine Republican justices, gave no timetable on when it might rule.
[b]In October, doctors told Cox that her fetus was at a high risk for a condition known as trisomy 18, which has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth, and low survival rates, according to the lawsuit. Her attorneys say Cox has been to the emergency room at least four times, including this week, and that her health is put increasingly at risk the longer her pregnancy lasts.[/b]
Doctors have told Cox that inducing labor or carrying the baby to term could jeopardize her ability to have another child in the future.
“I really would love another baby," Cox told NBC News this week after a lower court judge granted her permission for an abortion, “So, I’m hopeful for my health, our family.”



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abort...-kate-cox/

"Following Thursday's ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office issued a statement saying the temporary restraining order "will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas' abortion laws." 
Paxton's office also included a letter sent to several medical centers outlining action it will take against doctors who perform an abortion." 

[zqwerty]

Going back into the past.

[Lilith7]

It would be an excellent time for all women to get the hell out of Texas...

[zqwerty]

There is an exodus from Texas apparently.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/ar...541636.php

[zqwerty]

The battle goes on:

Kentucky woman who sued for abortion access says embryo no longer has cardiac activity

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ken...rcna129322

[zqwerty]

Legal abortion should always be available to those who want it, birth control isn't always reliable or a good safe answer for everyone.

Here's a link to a good Reddit thread on one such example:

"I made my daughter get an abortion because she’s slow.

My daughter is 16 and she is functioning way below her age and grade level. She is functioning at an 11/12 year old level. She barely made it to the 10th grade. My husband travels a lot and I work full time with my youngest kid being 8 yrs old. I’ve never had any help besides financially in raising my kids. I’m almost 50yrs and I would be raising this baby. Baby father is a pimple faced teen with ADHD and other disorders. I hope god forgive me but I can’t. I just can’t"

https://old.reddit.com/r/confession/comm...ause_shes/

[dken31]

I had a niece with trisomy 18. When it was diagnosed in-utero, my brother & his wife weren't pressured, as such, to kill their daughter but rather it was just assumed by all the medical staff that they'd want to with surprise being the reaction when they said they didn't want to.

My niece sadly only lived for about a year after birth, however she was a beautiful person who brought love and joy (along with the sadness) to her family.

Once you start down the route of killing people that are "defective" (and society is sadly quite a fair way down that road), how do you decide what defects justify killing for?

And don't try the "clump of cells" weasel words argument; at 20 weeks, a fetus is undeniably a human person. Down Syndrome, which ordinarily confers a death sentence these days is usually picked up at the 12 week ultrasound via measurement of fluid at the back of the baby's head, i.e. it has a clear human form at that stage. Describing it "just a clump of cells" is only as accurate as describing any of us as such. Killing a 10 week old fetus with Down Syndrome (or Trisomy 18, or any other "defect") is as morally justifiable as killing the same person 10 weeks post-birth or even at 10 years old.

[zqwerty]

dken31, you missed the point, she had the fetus aborted because she knew she would be the one bringing up another child at 50 years old and she didn't want to do that, her daughter and boyfriend were too useless to bring up the child, retarded or normal themselves.

It wasn't about the child it was what the grandmother was prepared to do or not.

[Lilith7]

Legal abortion should always be available to those who want it, birth control isn't always reliable or a good safe answer for everyone.

Here's a link to a good Reddit thread on one such example:

"I made my daughter get an abortion because she’s slow.

My daughter is 16 and she is functioning way below her age and grade level. She is functioning at an 11/12 year old level. She barely made it to the 10th grade. My husband travels a lot and I work full time with my youngest kid being 8 yrs old. I’ve never had any help besides financially in raising my kids. I’m almost 50yrs and I would be raising this baby. Baby father is a pimple faced teen with ADHD and other disorders. I hope god forgive me but I can’t. I just can’t"

https://old.reddit.com/r/confession/comm...ause_shes/

I think most would understand their situation - already fully stretched as it is.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

If an embryo can survive outside the womb, then and only then can it be considered a person. Prior to that it is a parasite in the any real sense of the word.

Why is it we can deal to the offspring of other creatures, but not our own? Considering we are one of the most populous species on the planet it seems a little ludicrous to assume anyone outside those immediately responsible for the pregnancy should have any say whatsoever in its outcome.

Talk about species entitlement...

[Lilith7]

I had a niece with trisomy 18.  When it was diagnosed in-utero, my brother & his wife weren't pressured, as such, to kill their daughter but rather it was just assumed by all the medical staff that they'd want to with surprise being the reaction when they said they didn't want to. 

My niece sadly only lived for about a year after birth, however she was a beautiful person who brought love and joy (along with the sadness) to her family.

Once you start down the route of killing people that are "defective" (and society is sadly quite a fair way down that road), how do you decide what defects justify killing for? 

And don't try the "clump of cells" weasel words argument; at 20 weeks, a fetus is undeniably a human person.  Down Syndrome, which ordinarily confers a death sentence these days is usually picked up at the 12 week ultrasound via measurement of fluid at the back of the baby's head, i.e. it has a clear human form at that stage.  Describing it "just a clump of cells" is only as accurate as describing any of us as such.  Killing a 10 week old fetus with Down Syndrome (or Trisomy 18, or any other "defect") is as morally justifiable as killing the same person 10 weeks post-birth or even at 10 years old.

If someone does NOT want an abortion then they shoudn't (& won't be) pressured to have an abortion.
If someone wants an abortion then they shouldn't be pressured to NOT have an abortion; sadly some want to have the right to dictate to women what they can & can't do with their bodies.

There would be massive protests & perhaps rioting in the streets, if women were to attempt to assert similar control over what men may or may not do with their bodies.

And once again, 'people' are not 'being killed' but that ludicrous idea is constantly psuhed by right to birthers. The nonsensical idea that the clump of cells removed in most abortions is in fact the equivalent of a  fully developed, fully functioning human is trotted out at every opportunity.

---

If an embryo can survive outside the womb, then and only then can it be considered a person. Prior to that it is a parasite in the any real sense of the word.

Why is it we can deal to the offspring of other creatures, but not our own? Considering we are one of the most populous species on the planet it seems a little ludicrous to assume anyone outside those immediately responsible for the pregnancy should have any say whatsoever in its outcome.

Talk about species entitlement...

Those of the right to birther variety tend to get upset at the parasite reproducing thing, but that is the way in which humans reproduce.
And yes, those responsible for the pregnancy are the only people concerned except perhaps in cases where there's some degree of mental inability; its not anyone else's business.


I think that, if women for some reason attempted to gain control over what men can or can't do with their bodies, all hell would break loose around the entire world. And rightly so.

[dken31]

zqwerty, I was responding to the OP article and not your reddit story. However, to responds to yours, I still maintain that if we're killing a baby due to it being too difficult to raise them, there is as much moral justification for doing it in-utero as there is for doing it when the baby is 6 months old.

Oh-hunnihunni, a 6 month old is a parasite in every sense of the word. A little bit of symbiosis starts to develop from perhaps around 2 years old, however children remain pretty parasitic until they move out at 17 - whenever years old. A six-month old also cannot survive on their own without intensive parental care.

As to the "offspring of other animals" argument, if you're suggesting that animals and humans should have equal rights, that is different argument. But can I then assume that you never swat an annoying mosquito nor would ever consider using a lethal rat trap? Or are you instead suggesting that humans should be able to be swatted / trapped & killed in the same way as we do to mosquitoes and rats? In any case, if "we do it to animals" is a valid moral argument, that again supports my assertion that if it is OK to kill defective humans in-utero, is equally justifiable to kill a defective baby once it is born.

Lilith, it has nothing to do with men wanting to control women. I think you'll find that there are many many women that find abortion morally objectionable and effectively 100% of men who consider abortion to be murder also believe that fathers should all be held responsible (financially and otherwise) for any children they help produce. And yes, I get that not all fathers can be tracked down by the time a baby is born, however that is no more justification for killing the child before it is born than it is for killing the child after it is born.

Also, I already addressed the "clump of cells" argument, although I realise you're not going to change your mind as doing so forces you to acknowledge the repugnant fact that you advocate for the killing of humans. Almost 60% of US abortions occur after 6 weeks, by which stage the "clump of cells" has a beating heart and obvious head. By 8 weeks, the embryo clearly looks like a baby, with arms and legs etc. https://abort73.com/abortion/abortion_pictures/

[Lilith7]

zqwerty, I was responding to the OP article and not your reddit story.  However, to responds to yours, I still maintain that if we're killing a baby due to it being too difficult to raise them, there is as much moral justification for doing it in-utero as there is for doing it when the baby is 6 months old.

Oh-hunnihunni, a 6 month old is a parasite in every sense of the word.  A little bit of symbiosis starts to develop from perhaps around 2 years old, however children remain pretty parasitic until they move out at 17 - whenever years old.  A six-month old also cannot survive on their own without intensive parental care.

As to the "offspring of other animals" argument, if you're suggesting that animals and humans should have equal rights, that is different argument.  But can I then assume that you never swat an annoying mosquito nor would ever consider using a lethal rat trap?  Or are you instead suggesting that humans should be able to be swatted / trapped & killed in the same way as we do to mosquitoes and rats?  In any case, if "we do it to animals" is a valid moral argument, that again supports my assertion that if it is OK to kill defective humans in-utero, is equally justifiable to kill a defective baby once it is born.

Lilith, it has nothing to do with men wanting to control women.  I think you'll find that there are many many women that find abortion morally objectionable and effectively 100% of men who consider abortion to be murder also believe that fathers should all be held responsible (financially and otherwise) for any children they help produce.  And yes, I get that not all fathers can be tracked down by the time a baby is born, however that is no more justification for killing the child before it is born than it is for killing the child after it is born.

Also, I already addressed the "clump of cells" argument, although I realise you're not going to change your mind as doing so forces you to acknowledge the repugnant fact that you advocate for the killing of humans.  Almost 60% of US abortions occur after 6 weeks, by which stage the "clump of cells" has a beating heart and obvious head.  By 8 weeks, the embryo clearly looks like a baby, with arms and legs etc. https://abort73.com/abortion/abortion_pictures/

That really is nonsense. It is about control, of women specifically. If it genuinelty was about the sanctity of life as right to birthers claim, then they'd be pressing for  other measures to be taken as well. For example, a ban on masturbation by men & boys, which wastes such a lot of material capable of beginning life. 

And as I've previously said, no one will ever force any woman who is opposed to abortion to undergo one.

And one more time - please use accurate terms - NO 'child is killed.' An embryo or foetus (cells)  is removed - that is not at all the same as killing an actual living, breathing, fully functioning child.

You will never have to have an abortion, because you are unable to ever become pregnant & give birth. 
Leave the decisions around pregnancy, birth & abortion to those who it affects most. 

I imagine men would be extremely quick to take offence should women move to require that for example, every adolescent boy undergo a reversible vasectomy - & rightly so, because while its an excellent idea in principle, demanding so much say in what another person does with their body  is far too much for most reasonable people & repugnant to most.

[king1]

when they become self aware works for me... who knows at what stage that is?

[zqwerty]

The people that believe in "right to life" should also make sure that the now surviving children who reach full term have an adequate upbringing to reach adult-hood instead of living a life of poverty and neglect which was one of the possible reasons not to want them in the first place.

The so called Christian concern about the abortion issue is much more about making sure there are downtrodden desperate ill-educated workers to service the labour force.

[Lilith7]

The people that believe in "right to life" should also make sure that the now surviving children who reach full term have an adequate upbringing to reach adult-hood instead of living a life of poverty and neglect which was one of the possible reasons not to want them in the first place.

The so called Christian concern about the abortion issue is much more about making sure there are downtrodden desperate ill-educated workers to service the labour force.

Yep, that & controlling people, especially women. Which is very much what the Abrahamic religions are about, to various degrees.

Incidentally, the question of poverty & continuing to help those in need after giving birth rather than aborting is very well covered by a poster, Geminigirl, who is pro life but but not pro forcing anyone to not  have an abortion. She works among poor people so has a good understanding of what's involved & says she's yet to see any right to birthers roll up their sellves & actually help.

https://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/9021225903

---

And then there's the question of body autonomy. (American spelling)


http://misandry-mermaid.tumblr.com/post/...tonomy-its

"There is a concept called body autonomy. Its generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a persons continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.
1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2. Awarding a pregnant person fewer rights to their body than a corpse."

[Lilith7]

And then....there's George Carlin...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzUGFXKj7hM


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IehHlR4BpAk