Reply to Roe v Wade struck down

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Roe v Wade struck down"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://x.com/troy_in_tahoe/status/1834636862205366289?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter][/quote]

It is very disappointing that major media is not reporting these stories. Not surprising, but disappointing. [/quote]

The only abortions illegalized by Dobbs were certain pre-viability abortions in conservative states. The odds that there are a sufficient number of bleed outs that ten thousand occurred among the population of women familiar with this relatively obscure commentator is zero. Thats not a political statement on my part; it's just a matter of whats even remotely plausible or not. [/quote]
Forced birthers just aren’t very bright.

Essentially all abortions were made illegal in forced birther states, including ones that forced birther women didn’t think “counted” as abortions.

At a minimum several thousand women online in these forced birthers states had poorly managed miscarriages or other early pregnancy complications.

The internet being what it is, word travels fast when some flaccid weird man claims it didn’t happen.

Women have died from these bans, guaranteed. [/quote]

I know you're constantly affirmed in your intelligence, but let me run something by you:

Before Dobbs, you could ban post-viability abortions. So to say that "essentially all abortions were made illegal" after Dobbs means that certain pre-viability abortions were made illegal; the post-viability abortions were *already* illegal. To suggest that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of women have "bled out" because they couldn't get a pre-viability abortion is just so self-evidently untrue that really the only suitable epithet for it is "alternative facts."[/quote]
Is that how you comfort yourself? Didn’t your guy just get burned by making such a boneheaded assumption and sharing it with the wide world? [/quote]

I'm not sure who you mean by "[my] guy"-- I assume Trump said something?-- but I'm not really political and won't be voting for Trump. I am pro-life, but I posted here primarily because I was mystified that so many people here were uncritically prepared to believe a story that is so obviously substantially incorrect. To this board's credit, no one has been willing to say, [b]"no no, tens or hundreds of thousands deaths actually have resulted from this."[/b] Credit where credit's due, I suppose. [/quote]
That’s not something that anyone is claiming.[/quote]

I guess you haven't been following along, but I was responding to a claim that "over 10K ... women" "ble[d] out in a parking lot because of the loss of Roe v. Wade." I feel gross even writing those words because it'd be terrible if it were true, but there's just no way it is [/quote]
If by “bled out” I meant “having serious complications that the doctors were unable to treat” yes, that’s what I meant when I wrote that. Women have certainly died from the GOP’s deep contempt for women as expressed through forced birther laws. You think all the women who had complications recovered? You think they all had the same complications? Carmen Broeder, for example, will now suffer from heart disease for the rest of her life. Do you think that’s visible? Do you think all the women who have been made sterile are going to be visible, especially to someone like you who is deliberately not looking?

And as far as the dead women go, I can’t blame their families for not coming forward. Look what happens when DonOLD and JD tell racist lies about Haitian immigrants. The Arlington Cemetery employee got assaulted by Trump staff and she’s not filing a complaint either because no one needs any right wing terrorists in their life.

These policies are meant to punish and maim women wherever and whenever possible. No, it won’t be visible to you, but then you don’t think women are people so it’s all kind of a wash to you anyway. [/quote]

I should disengage because it seems that you're just into having some free-floating abortion debate, but I'll give it one last go: some number of pregnancies will result in complications. Some smaller pregnancies will result in serious complications. Some smaller number will result in serious complications in the first one and a half trimesters. Some smaller number will result in serious complications in the first one and a half trimesters in a politically conservative state. Some smaller number will result in serious complications in the first one and a half trimesters in a politically conservative state and in a parking lot.

You sensibly posit that many of these incidents will be tragically "invisible." To suggest that there are nevertheless so many such instances that an obscure conservative commentator will be reliably told of 10,000 is the stuff of fiction. I shudder for our discourse when abortion fan fiction is credulously believed by an appreciable number of people simply because it affirms their worldview. [/quote]
You should disengage because you’re a forced birther and you’re in the wrong. But stick around and learn something.

In 2019 there were an estimated 5,507,000 pregnancies. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/20230412.htm#:~:text=The%20total%20estimated%20number%20of,2019%2C%20a%2012%25%20decline.

Let’s just ectopic pregnancies as a complication, since they necessarily mean that the pregnancy is not going to term, one way or the other. There’s an average of 15.8 ectopic pregnancies per 1000 pregnancies (but that’s age adjusted and one source put the numbers closer to 19% in North America) https://www.thepermanentejournal.org/doi/10.7812/TPP/21.099#:~:text=The%20overall%20age%2Dadjusted%20incidence,0.001)%20(Table%201). Provided I have done the math right, that’s about 87,000 ectopic pregnancies per year. Not all of those are in forced birther states, of course.

And that’s [i]one[/i] complication. Unless you’re hanging out in ERs and L&D wards or the bathrooms and parking lots or women’s bathrooms, you would have no flipping clue what’s happening. None whatsoever. And as an avowed forced birther, it’s not like any of the literature you select is going to enlighten you. You’re just like that Trump guy casually eating fried food and talking out of your butt, uncaring about what women are going through because of your hateful politics. [/quote]

This is what concerns me. You seem like a smart enough person. But you don't seem to get the import of these numbers. If there are 90,000 ectopic pregnancies in the United States per year, how many of those do you think actually result in abortion-preventable fatal blood loss in the first one-and-a-half trimesters-- and in a parking lot in a politically conservative state, no less, among acquaintances of people who listen to this one particular conservative? Five strikes me as implausibly high, and five gets you one twentieth of one percent of the way there. [/quote]

How do you think ectopic pregnancies resolve, exactly? Do you think they just "go away"???

No, without MEDICAL INTERVENTION, they burst and can cause a woman to die.

And that is just what is happening.

Sicko.[/quote]
My guess about the forced birther sicko, who says she does not vote for Trump, is one of those both sidesers who says that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, and then shuts her eyes when presented with evidence to the contrary. People like that always use too many words in an attempt to feel smart as they say incredibly stupid things. [/quote]

100%
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics