Texas abortion law forced women to carry a dead fetus for 2 weeks

[lolcatzuru]

Yes, they rule with hermetic dialectic to suck up power, to get what the want without showing themselves, because no one would accept them.

To a point. There are people who can't help themselves, but if you abandon standards there is no more insentive for discipline and you grow a culture of neglect and nihilism.

to the first point, yes, this, hard.

there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule, but as a HUGE generality, its optional behavior.

 

[Dakitten]

I was kindly asking you to not assume my reproductive organs.

Please don't...

All I am asking is to keep my reproductive organs out of this.

No.

In this particular instance, it is relevant. You've shown that you have no idea what you're talking about, but are quite opinionated on the subject. You obviously have no skin in the game, but you do find yourself to be morally justified in questioning the rights of others. You've kinda played your hand and showed yourself to be a bit of an arse, I fear.

Is this your version of "tits or gtfo"?

You want me to disclose the nature of my genitalia to you?

No need, you've already made it clear and it used to be posted in your profile. I'd more say my viewpoint is "Tits or educate yourself on the factors involved with women and reproductive rights or gtfo". Consequently, yeah, GTFO.

Not all women agree with you. Deal with it.

Most women and most men do. Deal with it.

That's solely the reason im against abortion, is that it passes the buck off of the people that got involved, ironically ,this is what they do in communist states with guns right? " well, it isn't the homicidal maniacs fault! the gun made him do it!" and the proceed to try to sue the gun manufacturer though ironically, we dont sue car manufacturer's which is just the darndest thing. If we want to pursue this idea that people aren't held responsible for their actions, then i guess we should let derrick chauvin out of the joint, as its not HIS fault, its isaac newton's fault, how dare that son of a bitch create the law's of gravity, if he didn't maybe Floyd would be alive.

believe that if people know that they can make a mistake that can't be easily fixed, hopefully they'll stop doing it, perhaps its a forlorn idea but, either way, its better than fragrant disregard of behavior.

I swear to yob all of these man babies... for the upteenth time, abortions are NOT used like birth control by loose women! They are involved, often quite uncomfortable or outright painful, and anybody dumb enough to rely on it as a form of birth control once will almost absolutely never be dumb enough to try it twice!

Abortions are often tragedies rooted in issues such as finances, partner issues after the fact, and sometimes just being overwhelmed by the magnitude of responsibility and physical debilitation and suffering which accompanies pregnancy. Every woman is different, and there are a TON of individual reasons an abortion might be the most reasonable choice. The women dealing with being pregnant are always in the best situation to gauge this issue, because all the effects of pregnancy fall directly on them.

Maybe try coming down off your high horse before using stupid generalizations to justify your ignorance of an issue.

 

[lolcatzuru]

No.

In this particular instance, it is relevant. You've shown that you have no idea what you're talking about, but are quite opinionated on the subject. You obviously have no skin in the game, but you do find yourself to be morally justified in questioning the rights of others. You've kinda played your hand and showed yourself to be a bit of an arse, I fear.


No need, you've already made it clear and it used to be posted in your profile. I'd more say my viewpoint is "Tits or educate yourself on the factors involved with women and reproductive rights or gtfo". Consequently, yeah, GTFO.


Most women and most men do. Deal with it.


I swear to yob all of these man babies... for the upteenth time, abortions are NOT used like birth control by loose women! They are involved, often quite uncomfortable or outright painful, and anybody dumb enough to rely on it as a form of birth control once will almost absolutely never be dumb enough to try it twice!

Abortions are often tragedies rooted in issues such as finances, partner issues after the fact, and sometimes just being overwhelmed by the magnitude of responsibility and physical debilitation and suffering which accompanies pregnancy. Every woman is different, and there are a TON of individual reasons an abortion might be the most reasonable choice. The women dealing with being pregnant are always in the best situation to gauge this issue, because all the effects of pregnancy fall directly on them.

Maybe try coming down off your high horse before using stupid generalizations to justify your ignorance of an issue.

do you have a source on that? because the only souce that i've seen is a source that the OVERWHELMINGLY majority of cases, its entire because the woman wants it, in fact, ironically most of the left coopt this idea by saying " well what about rape babies or life threatening cases" which are actually real concerns ( and ones already addressed in law" but an obscene number of cases are just women who are choosing t that they dont want to have the kid, period. I recommend doing some research before calling someone out, it helps you look more educated.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

do you have a source on that? because the only souce that i've seen is a source that the OVERWHELMINGLY majority of cases, its entire because the woman wants it

Says the person asking sources with no sources for their claims.

Secondly. Dakitten is a female, she'd know the topic far better than us since (I'm at least suspecting) that you are a guy. So the fact that your are trying to argue that it's:
1.Not a painful process
2. something that women actively look or want to do. which is a utter cow bullock. Since getting an abortion is painful, requires a doctor and additional assistance. Vs birth control or condoms which are very easily obtained.

3. But also your essentially making the implication that all women are slutty people, who love the "full experience" And that they just cannot handle the responsibility of doing it like that. Hence the need for an abortion. Even though it's straight up bullshit.

There are MANY factors that comes into the need for an abortion. Rape is one of them. The condom breaking or birth control failing is one of them. But how about the situations were finances drastically change, since let's face it, nearly everyone is holding on be a small thread. Perhaps maybe you don't, but all my neighbors I talk to, are underpaid, and living in by a slim margin (including myself. I'm going to be in the red this month)

If there finances dropped, if one of their jobs changed, or if they got severely injured. I guarantee they wouldn't be able to handle caring for a kid.

Everyone reason for it is going to be different and depend on circumstance, but practically NONE are doing it as a form of birth control. Abortions are costly. Would I rather pay about 3+6 dollars for a condom. (birth control's cost I'm not aware of. but it's also much cheaper still)
Or would I want to pay 500 dollars, for an abortion.

Which is easier? The painless 6 dollar option. Or the 500 dollar painful option that's going to debilitate for someone for a while.

Unless your calling all women a masochist, I'd assume (logically. we don't like pain. we don't like over spending) the former.

 

[Dakitten]

do you have a source on that?

Most abortions are first time abortions, and most abortions are for women who've started families and thus aren't using it as birth control

Reasons for abortion are diverse and justifiable

because the only souce that i've seen is a source that the OVERWHELMINGLY majority of cases,

Grammar nazi check, I know, but aside from wanting to see this source, I'd love to know what the fluff you're trying to convey...

its entire because the woman wants it,

And here we have a run on sentence with no purpose! I never said women didn't want abortions, I said they're all tragedies that have to be weighed against the ability to care for the child, the ability for the mother to endure the pregnancy safely, the presence of a partner that wishes to cooperate in raising a child, etc. Mothers are the ones carrying the life, thus they are directly present for every minute of every day of its development and should be the only voice that counts when figuring out what is best.

in fact, ironically most of the left coopt this idea by saying " well what about rape babies or life threatening cases" which are actually real concerns ( and ones already addressed in law"

You read many papers or threads here, comrade? This is just open failure on display.

but an obscene number of cases are just women who are choosing t that they dont want to have the kid, period. I recommend doing some research before calling someone out, it helps you look more educated.

Fools who dwell in glass hou-waitasec I remember saying this line earlier... Seriously, you're just a conga line of misogynist goldfish unable to keep prior discourse in your heads.

I hate to pull this card AGAIN, but as SOMEONE WHO HAS TWO CHILDREN THAT HAD TO COPE WITH AN ABORTION THAT WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY LOST THEM A PARENT, DESPITE WANTING AND TRYING FOR ANOTHER CHILD I believe I'm a little more experienced and credible than dumb kid with a hot take 85677 here. If you aren't a parent, a woman, or an individual who is experienced and educated on this topic, your ability to address this topic is questionable at best and you may want to quietly hit the sidelines.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Maybe but if you were actually a woman you would care about this stuff a little bit more because anti abortion laws essentially mean that your body belongs to someone else (if you're a woman). So techecally we can infer that you are male because if you weren't you would care a bit more (unless you're either too old or have been sterilized).

Anti-choice laws have and always will be about the theft of bodily autonomy from individuals, to be given to the state.

 

[tabzer]

No need, you've already made it clear and it used to be posted in your profile. I'd more say my viewpoint is "Tits or educate yourself on the factors involved with women and reproductive rights or gtfo". Consequently, yeah, GTFO.

If you must know, I am intersex/hermaphrodite. My labia probably isn't as floppy as yours and I will never be able to get pregnant.

Most women and most men do. Deal with it.

Hah. That's not even close to the point and I doubt that your "everything is about women's oppression" mentality is appealing to people in general. Militant feminism is stinky and wholly unpleasant.

 

[tabzer]

Medication to take at home for an abortion is completely normal, there is nothing really suspect about that by itself, especially since the medication usually takes up to three days.

You say it's not really suspect and I say that makes the story a lot more suspect. If there were better alternatives than what Stell chose to do, then it's not exactly a legal restriction that caused her scenario.

The doctor wouldn't be able to talk about it because of privacy laws, it also shouldn't be even required to take a plausible report seriously. Based on existing laws this is entirely feasible behavior to keep their medical license.

Doctors can talk about the type of scenario without going into specifics regarding identity of a patient or a case.

Luckily, nothing stops it from becoming one of those for other woman in the same position, and then having to deal with the fallout.

"Luckily. Nothing stops..." Lol. Anyway, you are tossing red herrings. I don't think Stell's story reliably paints the picture. I'd like someone a little more professional and apolitical to explain the law or medical consensus regarding this particular type of scenario.

It's not narrow; it matches reality. The exceeding majority of laws in the US written that govern abortion procedures and other reproductive rights have been written and voted into law by old, white men with a negligible portion being contributed by woman.

Just because some American interstate shenanigans resonates with a political frustration you have, doesn't make it a "worldview". Even in your specific part of the world, women do have the right to vote and run for office. If it's not enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you.

And that is a problem when those lawmakers demonstrate time and time again they know exactly nothing about woman's reproductive health.

They at least know enough to make restrictions.

It still makes my blood boil that people like former congressman Todd Akin, who thinks that a woman's body has ways to shut pregnancy from "legitimate rape" down, are able to make laws for those things.

Ok.

No relevant details are missing, you just want to enforce a silly amount of burden of proof and "require" details to believe a story that have no reason to be public.

I don't find the story to be believable for a myriad of reasons. Discussing it with you brings exposure to more.

No, we don't have to have a full interview under oath before we can extend a trivial amount of courtesy and take it at face value. If the woman lied for personal gain that can be sorted out later, right now there are valid concers as the story is plausible the way it supposedly happened.

Getting outraged is not trivial courtesy. At face value, it's some youtuber interviewing with a political rag for a sensational piece to ride on the heels of a recent major political event. It's not someone who is confiding to their family or friends. If you do think the story is plausible, what would be the next step?

The second D&C procedure in the section you pasted references the one she asked to have done in Texas, and was denied because of the heartbeat act going into effect, see the quote I gave earlier.

I'm asking where you got the comparisons for the timelines of the two different miscarriages and why you think they should be treated the same way. If the first miscarriage was over 10 weeks, for example, a D&C might have been immediately recommended. It might be because she was having cramps and pains that she found out about the first miscarriage. You are trying to invent a way for this article to make sense, to you, due to the lack of information. We both know there isn't enough information. That's why you are supplementing it "facts" and details that don't exist.

As far as the part I quoted, it clearly states that Stell wanted another (D&C) procedure before trying again (leading into the second miscarriage). Either she has had at least three D&Cs or it's an editorial mistake.

I'd really rather not when the life of people are at stake during medical emergencies. Just because Mrs Stell survived doesn't mean everyone else will.

If you don't want to see how it'll play out, what do you think you can do to change the scenario?

 

[lolcatzuru]

Says the person asking sources with no sources for their claims.

Secondly. Dakitten is a female, she'd know the topic far better than us since (I'm at least suspecting) that you are a guy. So the fact that your are trying to argue that it's:
1.Not a painful process
2. something that women actively look or want to do. which is a utter cow bullock. Since getting an abortion is painful, requires a doctor and additional assistance. Vs birth control or condoms which are very easily obtained.

3. But also your essentially making the implication that all women are slutty people, who love the "full experience" And that they just cannot handle the responsibility of doing it like that. Hence the need for an abortion. Even though it's straight up bullshit.

There are MANY factors that comes into the need for an abortion. Rape is one of them. The condom breaking or birth control failing is one of them. But how about the situations were finances drastically change, since let's face it, nearly everyone is holding on be a small thread. Perhaps maybe you don't, but all my neighbors I talk to, are underpaid, and living in by a slim margin (including myself. I'm going to be in the red this month)

If there finances dropped, if one of their jobs changed, or if they got severely injured. I guarantee they wouldn't be able to handle caring for a kid.

Everyone reason for it is going to be different and depend on circumstance, but practically NONE are doing it as a form of birth control. Abortions are costly. Would I rather pay about 3+6 dollars for a condom. (birth control's cost I'm not aware of. but it's also much cheaper still)
Or would I want to pay 500 dollars, for an abortion.

Which is easier? The painless 6 dollar option. Or the 500 dollar painful option that's going to debilitate for someone for a while.

Unless your calling all women a masochist, I'd assume (logically. we don't like pain. we don't like over spending) the former.

i thought we were past the point of assuming someones gender, but i guess thats a bigot for you, also i didnt know i needed a source? i figured it was on all your liberal notecards, yes you all know the percentages are really high, so cling to something that has nothing to do with you and make it about you.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Most abortions are first time abortions, and most abortions are for women who've started families and thus aren't using it as birth control

Reasons for abortion are diverse and justifiable


Grammar nazi check, I know, but aside from wanting to see this source, I'd love to know what the fluff you're trying to convey...


And here we have a run on sentence with no purpose! I never said women didn't want abortions, I said they're all tragedies that have to be weighed against the ability to care for the child, the ability for the mother to endure the pregnancy safely, the presence of a partner that wishes to cooperate in raising a child, etc. Mothers are the ones carrying the life, thus they are directly present for every minute of every day of its development and should be the only voice that counts when figuring out what is best.


You read many papers or threads here, comrade? This is just open failure on display.


Fools who dwell in glass hou-waitasec I remember saying this line earlier... Seriously, you're just a conga line of misogynist goldfish unable to keep prior discourse in your heads.

I hate to pull this card AGAIN, but as SOMEONE WHO HAS TWO CHILDREN THAT HAD TO COPE WITH AN ABORTION THAT WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY LOST THEM A PARENT, DESPITE WANTING AND TRYING FOR ANOTHER CHILD I believe I'm a little more experienced and credible than dumb kid with a hot take 85677 here. If you aren't a parent, a woman, or an individual who is experienced and educated on this topic, your ability to address this topic is questionable at best and you may want to quietly hit the sidelines.

yea im not gonna do any of those things, thanks though, secondly, outside of the last point, i dont see how any of that qualifies you vs. anyone else. Sorry to hear about the last point, its a bummer, what i find strange, is that you let them use you for their own purpose.

 

[Dakitten]

If you must know, I am intersex/hermaphrodite. My labia probably isn't as floppy as yours and I will never be able to get pregnant.

You wish you were that interesting.

Hah. That's not even close to the point and I doubt that your "everything is about women's oppression" mentality is appealing to people in general. Militant feminism is stinky and wholly unpleasant.

Weird counter argument... honestly, I never figured myself as a militant feminist or an eternal victim or anything but I guess equality feels like persecution to the privileged.

yea im not gonna do any of those things, thanks though,

What things? Educate yourself or go sit on the sidelines about a topic you obviously know nothing about? Read the articles that outline my point? Learn the english language? Well...

secondly, outside of the last point, i dont see how any of that qualifies you vs. anyone else. Sorry to hear about the last point, its a bummer,

You're a special kind of dumb, I see. Very well, I'll play this out with you a little bit.

I'm more qualified to talk on this subject due to my life experiences, knowledge of biology and as a plus the medical profession as well, and relatability to who this topic impacts. It is personal to me. It impacts me. It impacts a lot of people, and amongst those numbers, you are obviously not included or you would understand why it is a dangerous wrongdoing. You are not impacted. You are not knowledgeable about parenthood, pregnancy, miscarriages, and I suspect even the every day pitfalls and problems of relationships and finances. You've shown this in your circle jerk with @Creamu where you pontificated on this and other issues you have no goddamned clue about. You continue to showcase your ability to be a progressively more terrible person by doubling down on your own ignorance again and again. I implore you, reduce the amount of cringe here and just bounce out of this thread before you further ruin your rep. Maybe get really spicy and just apologize while you're there.

what i find strange, is that you let them use you for their own purpose.

Who the fudge is "them" and how was I used, exactly? I'm going to go out on a limb and presume you mean pro-choice folks, and say that if anything I'm using the power of unity in numbers to make my point as loudly as possible. Do you think there is a blood tithe to the progressive/feminist cabal or something?

 

[RAHelllord]

You say it's not really suspect and I say that makes the story a lot more suspect. If there were better alternatives than what Stell chose to do, then it's not exactly a legal restriction that caused her scenario.

Medication can have undesirable side effects over a D&C, and more importantly over the counter medicine that can induce an abortion was freely available at the time, thus the doctor can recommend a course of action without taking any direct action themselves. It's an option but we don't know if it would be the better option, and since it went against the wishes of the patient there's a chance it was not for some reason.

Doctors can talk about the type of scenario without going into specifics regarding identity of a patient or a case.

You literally wanted to have the doctor questioned about this specific case, now you want the doctor to just talk in general?
Make up your mind.

"Luckily. Nothing stops..." Lol. Anyway, you are tossing red herrings. I don't think Stell's story reliably paints the picture. I'd like someone a little more professional and apolitical to explain the law or medical consensus regarding this particular type of scenario.

The story is a personal experience based around a layman's understanding of the law on both the side of the patient and the side of the doctor. You could not be farther from the point if you believe the article aims to be a dissemination of the impact of the law changes on doctor's practices.
Also what political affiliation is beauty influencer? Is makeup left leaning or right leaning? How does her choice in mascara influence her political views on abortion?

Just because some American interstate shenanigans resonates with a political frustration you have, doesn't make it a "worldview". Even in your specific part of the world, women do have the right to vote and run for office. If it's not enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm German, we have a lot more equality here than people in the US do, nice try assuming, though.

They at least know enough to make restrictions.

That's literally the dumbest argument you could have made. Passing restrictions to deny something requires literally nothing but knowing a few terms and not having any grasp on what those terms actually mean. This is perfectly demonstrated by Ohio's bill that requires a doctor to try and transplant an ectopic pregnancy to save the fetus's life in case of an ectopic pregnancy.
No procedure for that exists, period. Medicine has not found a way to transplant an embryo from the fallopian tubes to the uterus. And yet the law requires that it will be attempted or else the doctor opens themselves up for liability.

Getting outraged is not trivial courtesy. At face value, it's some youtuber interviewing with a political rag for a sensational piece to ride on the heels of a recent major political event. It's not someone who is confiding to their family or friends. If you do think the story is plausible, what would be the next step?

You're the only person insisting that outrage is the goal compared to shining a light on bad legislation that needs to be fixed as soon as we can.
Also the washington post is barely left leaning. It's owned by capitalist billionaires who are very much not aligned with the actual left. And I do mean the actual left, not the right-centre democracts the US calls "the left".

I don't find the story to be believable for a myriad of reasons. Discussing it with you brings exposure to more.

Are these reasons related to your inability to parse nested sentences correctly in english? Because that's a pitfall you can't seem to get over and that leads to you believing that "editorial mistakes" are being made when there aren't any.

I'm asking where you got the comparisons for the timelines of the two different miscarriages and why you think they should be treated the same way. If the first miscarriage was over 10 weeks, for example, a D&C might have been immediately recommended. It might be because she was having cramps and pains that she found out about the first miscarriage. You are trying to invent a way for this article to make sense, to you, due to the lack of information. We both know there isn't enough information. That's why you are supplementing it "facts" and details that don't exist.

I do not supplement anything, I just read the article correctly and don't stumble over rather basic nested sentences and then understand them incorrectly as a result. Let me attempt to help you make sense of the quote:

"Stell had the procedure after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washington state, when she felt so much pain that she could not walk, and she wanted to go through with it again before trying again for a second child, she told The Washington Post."

The underlined part is the first half of the independent clause followed by a dependent clause inside the commas. After the comma continues the independent clause and gets finished with another dependent clause at the end.
From the article we already know Mrs Stell has a child, and has been trying for a second child for some time now.
Simplifying the sentence by splitting it into two separate ones we can change it to the following without altering the meaning:

Stell had a D&C after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washinton state, and after her second miscarriage she wanted to have another D&C again so she could try once more for the desired second child. Mrs Stell had to have a D&C after her first miscarriage due to resulting complications from an undetected incomplete miscarriage.

This also explains why she wanted a D&C for her second miscarriage, instead of having to wait for multiple weeks to have a miscarriage, and then wait some more weeks before she would be fertile again. The D&C speeds this entire process up by a considerable amount as the person won't have to wait for the miscarriage to complete, instead healing starts the same day. In addition to that consider that Mrs Stell is likely in her fourties, and thus complications become more common, too, a D&C is an easy way to ensure complications won't have a chance of happening.
Any complications that might arise if not treated would also likely have a negative impact on her chances to still get a second child. And before you claim that this is "supplementing facts" this is basic knowledge about pregnancies and quite frankly every adult should know that.

As far as the part I quoted, it clearly states that Stell wanted another (D&C) procedure before trying again (leading into the second miscarriage). Either she has had at least three D&Cs or it's an editorial mistake.

She already tried again for a second child, hence the second miscarriage, and would like to try again for a second child following the second miscarriage. This is literally elementary school level reading comprehension you're failing at here.

If you don't want to see how it'll play out, what do you think you can do to change the scenario?

Repeal the texas heartbeat act, the other anti-abortion statutes, and implement laws that actually give doctors and patients the legal framework to make sensible decisions without the meddling of lawmakers. The doctor of any patient is going to know better what's best for their patients than any given politician ever could.

 

[tabzer]

Medication can have undesirable side effects over a D&C, and more importantly over the counter medicine that can induce an abortion was freely available at the time, thus the doctor can recommend a course of action without taking any direct action themselves. It's an option but we don't know if it would be the better option, and since it went against the wishes of the patient there's a chance it was not for some reason.

You are suggesting that waiting 2 weeks for D&C was the better alternative "for some reason". She did get a D&C which means that D&C isn't outlawed. I don't buy this story.

You literally wanted to have the doctor questioned about this specific case, now you want the doctor to just talk in general?
Make up your mind.

I wanted something more. I still want the doctor's side of the story, but considering "privacy"...

The story is a personal experience based around a layman's understanding of the law on both the side of the patient and the side of the doctor. You could not be farther from the point if you believe the article aims to be a dissemination of the impact of the law changes on doctor's practices.
Also what political affiliation is beauty influencer? Is makeup left leaning or right leaning? How does her choice in mascara influence her political views on abortion?

It's strictly on the side of this patient's story, which is makes this one-sided. My point is that the article doesn't aim to accurately disseminate the impact of law changes on doctor's practices and woman's health.

I'm German, we have a lot more equality here than people in the US do, nice try assuming, though.

You proposed "shitty things happen to pregnant woman due to old white man making laws about subjects they know nothing about" as a worldview and then doubled-down on it being the truth. I am working with the material you are providing.

That's literally the dumbest argument you could have made. Passing restrictions to deny something requires literally nothing but knowing a few terms and not having any grasp on what those terms actually mean. This is perfectly demonstrated by Ohio's bill that requires a doctor to try and transplant an ectopic pregnancy to save the fetus's life in case of an ectopic pregnancy.
No procedure for that exists, period. Medicine has not found a way to transplant an embryo from the fallopian tubes to the uterus. And yet the law requires that it will be attempted or else the doctor opens themselves up for liability.

It wasn't an argument. It's stating the crass and obvious fact which was at odds with what you previously said.

You're the only person insisting that outrage is the goal compared to shining a light on bad legislation that needs to be fixed as soon as we can.
Also the washington post is barely left leaning. It's owned by capitalist billionaires who are very much not aligned with the actual left. And I do mean the actual left, not the right-centre democracts the US calls "the left".

Outrage was the OP. You defend it by suggestion it as a trivial courtesy. If you are suggesting that OP is overreacting and misses sight of the intention of the article, then that is new to me. Also, I didn't say WAPO is left leaning. It's a political mouthpiece.

Are these reasons related to your inability to parse nested sentences correctly in english? Because that's a pitfall you can't seem to get over and that leads to you believing that "editorial mistakes" are being made when there aren't any.

It's a bit convoluted:

"Stell had the procedure after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washington state, when she felt so much pain that she could not walk, and she wanted to go through with it again before trying again for a second child, she told The Washington Post."

The underlined part looks to reference the second C&D before the event leading into the second miscarriage. "Trying again for a second child" could be referencing a third attempt, after the second D&C, but later in the article it says she doesn't want to try again because having two miscarriages puts her at higher risk for a third.

I already explained why I took issue with the doctor saying "try to miscarry at home". You find it very believable that an upstanding doctor to give that as advice. I don't.

I do not supplement anything, I just read the article correctly and don't stumble over rather basic nested sentences and then understand them incorrectly as a result.

Based on this: "Stell had the procedure after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washington state, when she felt so much pain that she could not walk,"

You said this: "she got the treatment she wanted after her last miscarriage, and requested it so she wouldn't have to go through the pain of the complications from the first time around where the fetus remained inside her for longer"

We do not know the length of one pregnancy compared to the other before leading to miscarriage. We do not know for how long the fetus had died before she was feeling pain. As far as we know, she found out she had a miscarriage the first time around because she had pain. She also had switched changed doctors in between, which doesn't really help her out.

This also explains why she wanted a D&C for her second miscarriage, instead of having to wait for multiple weeks to have a miscarriage, and then wait some more weeks before she would be fertile again. The D&C speeds this entire process up by a considerable amount as the person won't have to wait for the miscarriage to complete, instead healing starts the same day. In addition to that consider that Mrs Stell is likely in her fourties, and thus complications become more common, too, a D&C is an easy way to ensure complications won't have a chance of happening.
Any complications that might arise if not treated would also likely have a negative impact on her chances to still get a second child. And before you claim that this is "supplementing facts" this is basic knowledge about pregnancies and quite frankly every adult should know that.

Mayyyybe. The entire story is told about one year after the fact, retrospectively. Not only will she embellish details, but you are jumping in to supplement it. We are so far away from the actual event.

She already tried again for a second child, hence the second miscarriage, and would like to try again for a second child following the second miscarriage. This is literally elementary school level reading comprehension you're failing at here.

Nah, you just don't want to admit that the story is just a poorly told story with its contradictions.

Repeal the texas heartbeat act, the other anti-abortion statutes, and implement laws that actually give doctors and patients the legal framework to make sensible decisions without the meddling of lawmakers. The doctor of any patient is going to know better what's best for their patients than any given politician ever could.

You do that.

 

[tabzer]

You wish you were that interesting.

I know how hard it is for you to say that I am interesting while you are trying to gatekeep online forums with your genitals. I accept the nod.

Weird counter argument... honestly, I never figured myself as a militant feminist or an eternal victim or anything but I guess equality feels like persecution to the privileged.

Not really a counter argument. I said you missed the point of me saying that not all women agree with you. You challenged me to consider how many women agree with you, and when I did, I realized that you are a fringe narcissist on gaming website talking about how you are the most equal person, fighting for women's rights in places where they aren't repressed. The fact that most women aren't here along with you or behave like you says enough.

 

[RAHelllord]

It's a bit convoluted:

"Stell had the procedure after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washington state, when she felt so much pain that she could not walk, and she wanted to go through with it again before trying again for a second child, she told The Washington Post."

The underlined part looks to reference the second C&D before the event leading into the second miscarriage. "Trying again for a second child" could be referencing a third attempt, after the second D&C, but later in the article it says she doesn't want to try again because having two miscarriages puts her at higher risk for a third.

I already explained why I took issue with the doctor saying "try to miscarry at home". You find it very believable that an upstanding doctor to give that as advice. I don't.

This is actually getting sad. No, it's referencing the miscarriage and a wish to try again for another child, and she is now, 10 months later and after Roe v Wade getting overturned, deciding that it's not worth the risk to her wellbeing as she's at risk for getting another miscarriage. If she were to have another miscarriage she would have to go through the entire healthcare circus again to get the treatment she needs in order to prevent potential health complications as doctors drag their feet due to legislation requiring it.

All of that is made exceedingly clear in the article:

After her initial miscarriage in 2018, Stell and her husband had their first child, a daughter, in April 2020. When the couple moved from Washington state to Texas in 2021, they were trying to have a second child, Stell said, even though she knew she was at high risk because of her age, previous health problems and miscarriage. So when she found a doctor who specialized in high-risk pregnancies last summer, she was thrilled to find out that the early weeks of her pregnancy looked promising.

“I was about 7½ weeks pregnant, and everything looked great,” Stell said. “The doctor said there was some movements and fluttering, but everything with the pregnancy looked normal.”
[...]
Stell was asked to come back about two weeks later for a follow-up appointment in late September 2021.
[...]
Stell got the news she feared: She had lost the pregnancy. She was told she had a blighted ovum, which is when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus but does not develop into an embryo.
[...]
She was shocked to learn that the common procedure she got so easily in Washington state was anything but simply obtained in Texas. She said she was told she needed additional proof, or multiple ultrasounds, showing that her pregnancy was not viable before she could get a D and C. Nine days into carrying her dead fetus, the sorrow of her first miscarriage had returned.
[...]
Stell eventually found an abortion services provider in downtown Houston who would give her the D and C on Oct. 4, 2021. After she was met by antiabortion protesters, Stell opened up about the experience on her YouTube channel.
[...]
“I get so angry that I was treated this way because of laws that were passed by men who have never been pregnant and never will be,” Stell told her followers at the time. “I’m frustrated, I’m angry, and I feel like the women here deserve better than that. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence that you want to sit on, laws like this affect all women regardless of what situation you’re in, and it’s not right.”

When Roe was overturned last month, Stell said it was her duty to share her story with those who might have similar experiences.
[...]
Stell said on Twitter this week that the experience almost 10 months ago is the reason she and her husband have decided that they would not try to have additional children in Texas. She told The Post that her two miscarriages put her at higher risk for a third.

“Our fear is that if I get pregnant and miscarry again that something will happen,” she said. “We just do not feel confident at all that we’ll get the care that we need in Texas if something were to happen.”

Like, seriously, this couldn't be any more clear if they provided an actual calendar and bullet points to follow the timeline.

You said this: "she got the treatment she wanted after her last miscarriage, and requested it so she wouldn't have to go through the pain of the complications from the first time around where the fetus remained inside her for longer"

We do not know the length of one pregnancy compared to the other before leading to miscarriage. We do not know for how long the fetus had died before she was feeling pain. As far as we know, she found out she had a miscarriage the first time around because she had pain. She also had switched changed doctors in between, which doesn't really help her out.

We don't have to know the specifics about the first pregnancy to make educated guesses based on existing literature, that are pretty much in agreement that a miscarriage that doesn't remove itself will turn painful after a while. A D&C prevents that from happening. There's also simply the chance Mrs Stell doesn't even know how long the first pregnancy was a miscarriage since checkups may have been spaced further apart due to a lack of earlier complications.
But again, it does not matter at all, there is no reliable literature published by actually competent health institutions that suggest D&C should only be used as a last resort and after verifying for over two weeks that the fetus is actually dead. It takes roughly 15 minutes to determine whether fetus is dead for good or not.

Outrage was the OP. You defend it by suggestion it as a trivial courtesy. If you are suggesting that OP is overreacting and misses sight of the intention of the article, then that is new to me.

I'm not defending OP, or their arguments, I am telling you your position that the article is fake news is a load of bull for all the reasons I've stated by now.

Also, I didn't say WAPO is left leaning. It's a political mouthpiece.

Quick question, what flavor of politics is it a mouthpiece for?

It's strictly on the side of this patient's story, which is makes this one-sided. My point is that the article doesn't aim to accurately disseminate the impact of law changes on doctor's practices and woman's health.

That's not the point of the article, though. You putting the onus on it to be more than it actually aims to be misrepresents it. It's a retelling of a personal experience, it's neither a medical journal on a case nor is it an exploration of the legal intricacies of the Texas laws, and it was never meant to be either. None of that makes it fake news.

You proposed "shitty things happen to pregnant woman due to old white man making laws about subjects they know nothing about" as a worldview and then doubled-down on it being the truth. I am working with the material you are providing.

It wasn't an argument. It's stating the crass and obvious fact which was at odds with what you previously said.

It's really weird how nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said, and how I can easily back up all my claims with sources and expert opinions on the topics I'm talking about. Meanwhile you're the only going on about "fake news", "political mouthpieces", "sensationalism", and a beauty influencer having an agenda.
You still haven't managed to provide a source for the claim that a D&C should not be performed before week 10 in a pregnancy.

The fact that most women aren't here along with you or behave like you says enough.

They're probably not as represented in the gaming community because people like you similar sad misogynistic people think ridiculing woman online is a fun pastime activity.

Case in point:

"I don't need no 'invasive ultra sounds' doc, I've got 1.5 million followers and an image to promote. Now reach into me and scrape this thing out."

Really showing your maturity and understanding about other people here.

 

[MadonnaProject]

I am pro abortion. It will reduce the scourge of illegitimacy in certain communities and hopefully get them out of the gutter.

 

[tabzer]

This is actually getting sad. No, it's referencing the miscarriage and a wish to try again for another child, and she is now, 10 months later and after Roe v Wade getting overturned, deciding that it's not worth the risk to her wellbeing as she's at risk for getting another miscarriage. If she were to have another miscarriage she would have to go through the entire healthcare circus again to get the treatment she needs in order to prevent potential health complications as doctors drag their feet due to legislation requiring it.

It's referencing 2 miscarriages and the desire to try again, but later she changes her mind because her experience with 2 miscarriages is enough.

"Stell said on Twitter this week that the experience almost 10 months ago is the reason she and her husband have decided that they would not try to have additional children in Texas. She told The Post that her two miscarriages put her at higher risk for a third."

Her decision has nothing to do with R v W, and she has found a practician who will do a D & C if she needs it. The claim that her health has been endangered by legislation is unsubstantiated.

We don't have to know the specifics about the first pregnancy to make educated guesses based on existing literature, that are pretty much in agreement that a miscarriage that doesn't remove itself will turn painful after a while. A D&C prevents that from happening. There's also simply the chance Mrs Stell doesn't even know how long the first pregnancy was a miscarriage since checkups may have been spaced further apart due to a lack of earlier complications.

Do you think all miscarriages are 9 1/2 weeks? That is the assumption that you are making your "educated guess" on. We do have to know at least as many details about the first miscarriage to compare it to the second. I agree that it is possible that Stell didn't know how long she was carrying a failed pregnancy before finding out. Maybe 2 1/2 or 3 weeks, unwittingly.

You still haven't managed to provide a source for the claim that a D&C should not be performed before week 10 in a pregnancy.

When we both read the same sources, claiming that a D&C is recommended for a miscarriage occurring after 10 weeks, we can infer that it isn't generally recommended for less than that. Nowhere has it been stated that a D&C should not be performed. It's usually elective, and recommended in cases where the health of the would-be mother would benefit in pursuing that as opposed to not doing so.

I'm not defending OP, or their arguments, I am telling you your position that the article is fake news is a load of bull for all the reasons I've stated by now.

In other words, you believe someone you've never met and take WAPO as gospel, so I'm wrong. Okay.

Quick question, what flavor of politics is it a mouthpiece for?

The divisive kind, where previously stated billionaires inherit positions of political power via their pocket politicians. Oligarchical authoritarianism?

That's not the point of the article, though. You putting the onus on it to be more than it actually aims to be misrepresents it. It's a retelling of a personal experience, it's neither a medical journal on a case nor is it an exploration of the legal intricacies of the Texas laws, and it was never meant to be either. None of that makes it fake news.

Pointless news? Pretending that this isn't a political piece intentionally avoiding medical and legal clarity makes you a sucker imo. You should have higher standards.

t's really weird how nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said, and how I can easily back up all my claims with sources and expert opinions on the topics I'm talking about. Meanwhile you're the only going on about "fake news", "political mouthpieces", "sensationalism", and a beauty influencer having an agenda.
You still haven't managed to provide a source for the claim that a D&C should not be performed before week 10 in a pregnancy.

I already pointed out how you presented a worldview that you called true, and yet it doesn't apply to you because you are German. It's weird how much simpler my English is than your WAPO piece, yet you don't see it.

They're probably not as represented in the gaming community because people like you similar sad misogynistic people think ridiculing woman online is a fun pastime activity.

Great story. I'm here to ridicule women, and because of that, they aren't interested in having the same lifestyle as Dakitten. I guess women do agree with me more. You are going off the deep end when you say women can't represent women because they can't women enough.

Case in point:
(my op)
Really showing your maturity and understanding about other people here.

Trust me. If it was a man, I'd be even more prejudiced.

 

[tabzer]

Things like these make me wish Hugh Laurie could reprise his role and "be witty" with these folk so hard, they'd have flashbacks to him roasting him, therefore keeping em from commiting anymore stupidity..

I wonder what they would think if someone told em "their body is not theirs"

I hate ppl like that.

Love House, but I don't think he'd be allowed on most platforms in this era. The only complaint I have is how the show depicted receiving a power up from a Chozo statue as a loss.

 

[The Catboy]

The fact that there are people who find this funny is the very reason why this section was a mistake. This is about another human being forced to carry a pregnancy of a dead fetus because old guys decided what others can and can’t do with their body. That’s fucked up and it’s fucked up that anyone would be ok with that.

 

[lolcatzuru]

You wish you were that interesting.

Weird counter argument... honestly, I never figured myself as a militant feminist or an eternal victim or anything but I guess equality feels like persecution to the privileged.


What things? Educate yourself or go sit on the sidelines about a topic you obviously know nothing about? Read the articles that outline my point? Learn the english language? Well...


You're a special kind of dumb, I see. Very well, I'll play this out with you a little bit.

I'm more qualified to talk on this subject due to my life experiences, knowledge of biology and as a plus the medical profession as well, and relatability to who this topic impacts. It is personal to me. It impacts me. It impacts a lot of people, and amongst those numbers, you are obviously not included or you would understand why it is a dangerous wrongdoing. You are not impacted. You are not knowledgeable about parenthood, pregnancy, miscarriages, and I suspect even the every day pitfalls and problems of relationships and finances. You've shown this in your circle jerk with @Creamu where you pontificated on this and other issues you have no goddamned clue about. You continue to showcase your ability to be a progressively more terrible person by doubling down on your own ignorance again and again. I implore you, reduce the amount of cringe here and just bounce out of this thread before you further ruin your rep. Maybe get really spicy and just apologize while you're there.


Who the fudge is "them" and how was I used, exactly? I'm going to go out on a limb and presume you mean pro-choice folks, and say that if anything I'm using the power of unity in numbers to make my point as loudly as possible. Do you think there is a blood tithe to the progressive/feminist cabal or something?

its weird you claim to be so professional to and yet you resort to insults, how strange

You wish you were that interesting.

Weird counter argument... honestly, I never figured myself as a militant feminist or an eternal victim or anything but I guess equality feels like persecution to the privileged.


What things? Educate yourself or go sit on the sidelines about a topic you obviously know nothing about? Read the articles that outline my point? Learn the english language? Well...


You're a special kind of dumb, I see. Very well, I'll play this out with you a little bit.

I'm more qualified to talk on this subject due to my life experiences, knowledge of biology and as a plus the medical profession as well, and relatability to who this topic impacts. It is personal to me. It impacts me. It impacts a lot of people, and amongst those numbers, you are obviously not included or you would understand why it is a dangerous wrongdoing. You are not impacted. You are not knowledgeable about parenthood, pregnancy, miscarriages, and I suspect even the every day pitfalls and problems of relationships and finances. You've shown this in your circle jerk with @Creamu where you pontificated on this and other issues you have no goddamned clue about. You continue to showcase your ability to be a progressively more terrible person by doubling down on your own ignorance again and again. I implore you, reduce the amount of cringe here and just bounce out of this thread before you further ruin your rep. Maybe get really spicy and just apologize while you're there.


Who the fudge is "them" and how was I used, exactly? I'm going to go out on a limb and presume you mean pro-choice folks, and say that if anything I'm using the power of unity in numbers to make my point as loudly as possible. Do you think there is a blood tithe to the progressive/feminist cabal or something?

"them are the people who pretend to care about you and claim they care about you but dont"