US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade
Discussion
Electro1980 said:
I’m so sorry to hear that and thank you for providing a far better explanation of the whole miscarriage/abortion conflation than I could.
Unfortunately it is still the case, despite a complete lack of evidence (and evidence now that in fact there is a good explanation for most), that mothers are blamed for miscarriage even in much more liberal societies than th e US and the belief that there must have been some external factor or fault.
Thank you. And yes, there is a still a great deal of blame around miscarriage.Unfortunately it is still the case, despite a complete lack of evidence (and evidence now that in fact there is a good explanation for most), that mothers are blamed for miscarriage even in much more liberal societies than th e US and the belief that there must have been some external factor or fault.
I suspect that part of this is because it's a very underfunded area of research. Until relatively recently (the past 2 decades or so) it was just seen as "one of those things", especially because it's so common, approximately 1 in 5 pregnancies ends with a miscarriage. You just get back in bed and try again and hopefully the next one will make it. That is why you currently need to have 3 miscarriages in order to qualify for further investigations under the NHS.
Personally, it took 14 months to undercover why I had my miscarriages. I only had 2, but because my first was a late miscarriage (at almost 16 weeks) and these are rare (around 1 to 2% of all miscarriages are late, which is after the 12 week mark but before the 22 week point, at which point it becomes a stillbirth) I was referred to a recurrent miscarriage clinic.
My first round of bloodtests revealed nothing abnormal. The doctor decided to re-do two of them because she was concerned something had been missed. A haemotologist agreed and sent a sample off for genetic screening. I have one dodgy gene that causes my blood to clot easier than most people. It apepars that sometimes, in pregnancy, this makes microclots develop in the placenta and blood vessels, which causes the embryo to die and the body miscarries.
That is it. One sole gene. No idea which parent I got it from, neither of them has exhibited any symptoms and there is no history of miscarriage on either side of my family (as least up to my grandparents).
Research has also shown that in some pregnant people, a lack of Vitamin D is connected to miscarriage, as is low levels of the vitamin selenium. Some studies have shown that being given extra progesterone, a hormone produced during early pregnancy, reduces the risk of miscarriage, suggesting that in some the human body is unable to produce enough or maintain enough to keep an embryo going. And there may be many more factors we just don't know about, because the research hasn't been done.
These are all just hypotheses at the moment. If you miscarry today then the emphasis from all medical professionals is that you did nothing wrong, that it was something that happens, that there was probably a genetic issue with the embryo that meant it couldn't live.
You do blame yourself, of course. You're the one carrying the baby, you tell yourself that you must have done something wrong. You pick over it again and again, trying to work out how you failed. But here, at least, no one has the right to accuse me of committing a crime, so I'm lucky in that respect. And now I have answers, even though many others will never have theirs.
Rufus Stone said:
Silverbullet767 said:
Good point, we and all men should stfu on this. No man should decide anything to do with womens freedoms.
America's still f
ked though.
Are men not entitled to an opinion on protecting the life of the unborn child?America's still f
ked though.From a safe distance it looks like they've got a set of extremists on both the pro and anti sides, a big moderate majority in the middle, and a massive cluster fk due to not dealing with the problem because it was too difficult and toxic.
They've had decades to properly codify women's reproductive rights yet managed to just hang off the back of an opinion by a few judges and kick the can, and rather than get upset at politicians for failing to actually formalise those rights they're blaming the court for putting the onus back on the politicians when new judges revised their opinion.
They've dug themselves a very deep hole by leaving important things up to the opinion of judges interpreting vaguely related clauses when it should have been explicitly set out in black and white and put beyond question.
There need to be rights and rules, and those should be beyond the reach of easy fiddling in either direction.
I don't agree that the judges should have done this as it st on what looked like established rights, but that's the system they've built and they could have avoided the whole issue if they'd spent some effort like other countries have.
k due to not dealing with the problem because it was too difficult and toxic.They've had decades to properly codify women's reproductive rights yet managed to just hang off the back of an opinion by a few judges and kick the can, and rather than get upset at politicians for failing to actually formalise those rights they're blaming the court for putting the onus back on the politicians when new judges revised their opinion.
They've dug themselves a very deep hole by leaving important things up to the opinion of judges interpreting vaguely related clauses when it should have been explicitly set out in black and white and put beyond question.
There need to be rights and rules, and those should be beyond the reach of easy fiddling in either direction.
I don't agree that the judges should have done this as it s
t on what looked like established rights, but that's the system they've built and they could have avoided the whole issue if they'd spent some effort like other countries have. pquinn said:
Silverbullet767 said:
No. And it's not a child if its unborn.
That's a fairly extreme opinion too. 38/39 weeks is very different from 15 or 25 or 30. This is not a simple binary however much some on either side wish it was.
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
It says they're not a citizen, not that they're not a person. Slight difference. Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
The fact that they're going after contraception and gay marriage next should tell you exactly what sort of religious f**kwits we're dealing with here.Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
The irony of a gay Tory MP tweeting support for the repeal of Roe v Wade (and then iimmediately deleting it when someone informed him of the above) is amazing.
Silverbullet767 said:
pquinn said:
Silverbullet767 said:
No. And it's not a child if its unborn.
That's a fairly extreme opinion too. 38/39 weeks is very different from 15 or 25 or 30. This is not a simple binary however much some on either side wish it was.
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Are you for real?Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Rufus Stone said:
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Are you for real?Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Countdown said:
legzr1 said:
MentalSarcasm said:
Let's also not forget miscarriages, which are technically classed as "spontaneous abortions".
We have already seen from other countries that ban abortion that it can make access to medical care for a miscarriage very difficult. There have been deaths because doctors have been reluctant to treat a miscarriage in case they are accused of assisting in an abortion. In Texas it has been difficult for some to access the two main drugs to treat a miscarriage (mifepristone and misoprostol) because the pharmacist has been suspicious that they're actually being used for an abortion (because they are also used in abortions, they do the exact same thing regardless of the circumstance).
I've had 2 miscarriage. Both times I have shown up in A&E with a rather horrific amount of blood soaking into my trousers. To a suspicious person, or a non-medical person, I might have been trying to remove an unwanted baby with the old coathanger trick. Me and my husband could have been sitting at home, grieving our dead babies, when police come knocking at the door because they've been told we had an illegal miscarriage. Especially for the second, which I miscarried (at 9 weeks) into the toilet and couldn't face fishing out, so had nothing to take to the hospital. Is that true, or was I trying to hide evidence that I aborted my child?
People will die because they miscarry a baby that they really wanted, but medical treatment will be made harder for them to access.
No one has a right to demand that you, as a living person, give up one of your kidneys, or a lung, or a piece of your liver in order to extend the life of a sick person that needs a transplant, even though you could be giving them a chance at decades more life. This is because you have the right to say "no" to something that will damage your health or even risk your life, even if it means that someone else will die because of your choice.
But because someone is born with a uterus and a vagina, they should be forced to risk their health (hyperemsis gravidarum, gestational diabetes, tear damage to the bladder and/or bowel, or a prolapse) or life (placental abruption and pre-eclampsia can both be fatal) to maintain another life.
What an excellent (if harrowing and upsetting) post.We have already seen from other countries that ban abortion that it can make access to medical care for a miscarriage very difficult. There have been deaths because doctors have been reluctant to treat a miscarriage in case they are accused of assisting in an abortion. In Texas it has been difficult for some to access the two main drugs to treat a miscarriage (mifepristone and misoprostol) because the pharmacist has been suspicious that they're actually being used for an abortion (because they are also used in abortions, they do the exact same thing regardless of the circumstance).
I've had 2 miscarriage. Both times I have shown up in A&E with a rather horrific amount of blood soaking into my trousers. To a suspicious person, or a non-medical person, I might have been trying to remove an unwanted baby with the old coathanger trick. Me and my husband could have been sitting at home, grieving our dead babies, when police come knocking at the door because they've been told we had an illegal miscarriage. Especially for the second, which I miscarried (at 9 weeks) into the toilet and couldn't face fishing out, so had nothing to take to the hospital. Is that true, or was I trying to hide evidence that I aborted my child?
People will die because they miscarry a baby that they really wanted, but medical treatment will be made harder for them to access.
No one has a right to demand that you, as a living person, give up one of your kidneys, or a lung, or a piece of your liver in order to extend the life of a sick person that needs a transplant, even though you could be giving them a chance at decades more life. This is because you have the right to say "no" to something that will damage your health or even risk your life, even if it means that someone else will die because of your choice.
But because someone is born with a uterus and a vagina, they should be forced to risk their health (hyperemsis gravidarum, gestational diabetes, tear damage to the bladder and/or bowel, or a prolapse) or life (placental abruption and pre-eclampsia can both be fatal) to maintain another life.
Rufus Stone said:
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Are you for real?Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
MiniMan64 said:
Rufus Stone said:
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
Are you for real?Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
knuggets can do it, why not sensible people?
Gweeds said:
These threads are always useful for bringing out PH’s very own little MAGA mob.
Same names. Every time.
The cult leader has tried to claim it was all him...Same names. Every time.
"Today's decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation, along with other decisions that have been announced recently, were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised."
On Truth Social, jnr. posted a meme showing a man tipping the first of a series of oversize dominoes — labeled "Obama making fun of Trump at a dinner in 2011" and on the final, largest domino to fall, was labeled, "Roe v. Wade overruled." Junior captioned the meme, "f
k around and find out!!!"Edited by Byker28i on Saturday 25th June 16:07
sim72 said:
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
The fact that they're going after contraception and gay marriage next should tell you exactly what sort of religious f**kwits we're dealing with here.Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.
The irony of a gay Tory MP tweeting support for the repeal of Roe v Wade (and then iimmediately deleting it when someone informed him of the above) is amazing.
Personally I see both sides of the argument (abortion) but ultimately believe it should remain legal. By seeing both sides I mean sensible arguments, not religious nonsense.
ATG said:
Silverbullet767 said:
MiniMan64 said:
Is there a single woman posting on this thread or are we a bunch of men debating what women should be allowed to do and not do with their own bodies?
Good point, we and all men should stfu on this. No man should decide anything to do with womens freedoms.America's still f
ked though.
Silverbullet767 said:
According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Thats not what it means.Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff