the_toast_is_gone @ the_toast_is_gone @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

357

Joined

2 yr. ago

[Can you point to which law before this happened prohibits abortions in cases of medical emergency?(https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws#s-lg-box-wrapper-34155545) Let's go through the list:

• The 1925 laws were found unconstitutional.
• Roe v. Wade happened in 1973.
• In 1992, the "viability" standard was introduced. This baby was clearly unviable.
• The 1999 law is specific to minors, and the victim here wasn't a minor.
• The Woman's Right to Know Act didn't prohibit abortions.
• The 2011 law stated that a sonogram must be performed. Because the baby was suffering from an irreversible medical condition, though, this wouldn't apply.
• The only part of the 2013 law that was upheld was the ban after 20 weeks "with some exceptions." The rest were overtuned in 2016, and this event occurred before the 20th week.
• The 2017 law was found unconstitutional in 2018, well before this happened.
• The 2021 law went into effect on September 1, 2021. However, in Sec. 171.205, it states that the prohibition of abortions on a fetus with a detectable heartbeat "do[es] not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter." This was a medical emergency.

Laws can also be misread, and it's very likely that this was done somehow. The law explicitly allows abortions under these circumstances. Can you explain yourself what's confusing about it?

There's already been at least one doctor in Texas who risked legal consequences for performing an abortion, and he won out. And given that twelve other physicians stated a premature delivery should have been done, it's plain that something should have been done. Now she's dead, because apparently the hospital staff misunderstood a rather clearly-written law.

She died, so that's an emergency. If someone is having a stroke and somehow doesn't die until three days later, that doesn't make it any less an emergency.

That's worth watching an innocent person die? Besides, how likely is it that "even though she was literally dying of the infection and the hospital knew it, that didn't constitute a medical emergency" would hold up in court?

How is any of that legal text "intimidating"?

Can you please tell me how this is a legal minefield:

Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(3) "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

...

Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:

(1) include in the patient's medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and

(2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.

You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.

I'm not comparing them in terms of moral status, I'm comparing them in terms of what they can and can't do by law.

Can you please tell me how this is confusing:

Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(3) "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

...

Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:

(1) include in the patient's medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and

(2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.

You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.

The law is perfectly clear in allowing this. I'm not going to guess why they didn't do it, but your point is like arguing a cop watching a mass shooting happen right in front of him would be right to blame the law against excessive use of force if he chose not to kill the mass shooter even though there was an explicit clause saying it would have been permitted.

Texas state law allows abortion in cases of medical emergencies. The hospital was absolutely in the wrong here.

I mean, you can't even tell me what would justify October 7th, so I'm not sure even you understand your own ideology. It comes across to me like Christians who reframe the entire world through their interpretation of the Bible, then get angry at others for questioning it. In this case, it comes from a furious inability to accept that Hamas committed unjustifiable atrocities because that would collapse your entire worldview. You're probably backing off now because you're afraid of having this precious opinion challenged any more than it already has been.

But hey, I can't force you to reply anymore. I enjoyed this conversation, and I hope you have a good rest of the week.

I should have added them before. Now, would you like to answer the question, or was October 7th not justified?

So what specific circumstances would justify raping a bunch of women, killing dozens of children, and shooting up a concert full of people who were not an immediate threat to you? And how do they not also justify 9/11?

So just give it to me straight, do you think it's okay to shoot up a concert where nobody could reasonably be considered a threat to you? Consider that in isolation. It's a simple question yes or no question. I'll read your thing about "resistance ideology" if you can answer that.

I found this article, which specifically states:

Under international law the right to resist excludes recourse to violence against civilians.

That sounds to me like Hamas isn't allowed to kill civilians. Do I understand that correctly?

I don't really know what "resistance ideology" is. Are otherwise-heinous actions acceptable if they come from a weaker party? Is this that power-plus-prejudice thing again?

Ukraine's capabilities wouldn't change whether Russia's invasion was unjust. If they were a corrupt nation run by neo-Nazis (they aren't) and Russia wanted to draw attention to it, then they'd be justified in attacking Ukraine.

Yes, Operation Cyclone is a fact, but Al-Qaeda literally said that they didn't receive US funding. They have zero reason to lie about that. Why are you so angry about it?

Morality is the entire point of the discussion. If morals don't matter, then it shouldn't matter how many innocent people die at the hands of Hamas - or the IDF. Both sides can do whatever they want and nobody gets to complain about what they do. That includes you, me, and everyone else on Lemmy. If morals do matter, then we need to think about the motivations and actions of every party involved.

Hamas and Hezbollah are both oppressive, extremist regimes internationally recognized as terrorist groups who are intent on destroying Israel. This is literally genocide. Since Iran is funding and arming them, Iran is complicit in their attacks on Israel. Iran is also internationally known as a state sponsor of terror. These are indisputable facts.

Iran only gets attacked by Israel when they start fights with Israel. Their motivation is simply the destruction of a nation that doesn't provoke them. The recent strikes were a response to Iran's sponsor of murderous terrorist groups attacking Israel - namely, Iran messed around and found out.

If morals don't matter, why are you so upset about Israel killing civilians? If morals do matter, how do you feel about Hamas expelling the previous government of Gaza in a civil war, using the entire Gaza strip as a human shield, raping and killing over a thousand innocent people, kidnapping over two hundred of them, and firing thousands of indiscriminate rockets into Israel?

If raping and murdering people is an acceptable way to bring attention to issues, then the Russian invasion of Ukraine under the pretense of eliminating anti-Russian bias and removing Nazi influence in their government. You and I both know that's a ridiculous statement, but it follows logically from yours.