Infant mortality rises in US states with abortion bans

I'm not sure how any of that has to do with what I said. I am also pro-life for myself. Which is actually pro-choice because I am choosing that for myself.

I am genuinely curious as to that posters reasoning, which she has not explained at all. Although, it would be a lie to say I don't hold contempt for anyone who thinks it's okay to force women to give birth.

I heard this story on the news yesterday and thought 'No shit Sherlock!'. Of course there are going to be many babies born now that would otherwise have been terminated for medical reasons. It's horrendous that their poor mothers are forced to go through with the pregnancy of a non-viable foetus, when safe medical termination exists, but that's one of the consequences of an abortion ban and it increases the suffering of babies and their mothers (and wider families).

Just to be clear i didn't think there was anything wrong with Relocate's tone. That was just coincidence it was her post i quoted

I am 100% prochoice for everyone else. But I am pro-life for myself. I could never end a pregnancy under any circumstance. Because what if they were wrong. There was an article in the BBC this week about a couple of mothers who ended their babies lives through abortion because of wrong information. And someone who refused abortion after being told the baby was incompatible with life that was fully healthy. This is why some people are prolife. And in the case of incest, rape etc I simply believe it's not my place to end life.
Maybe that perspective from someone that is prochoice, might support debate that's a nicer tone. Rather than the tone of contempt from some on the prochoice side.

Give me an actual pro-lifer over a misogynist who claims to be pro-lifer but just wants to punish women.

Women are also dying in higher numbers, from conditions such as missed miscarriage.
Some of those women are already mothers, so the anti abortion policy also has a knock on effect on their families.

I think both women should have the choice to do what they consider to be right for them.

It appears that she has to be seen to be punished for conceiving a child (whether against her will or not is IMO irrelevant) that will not survive. She has to be seen to have the risks to her life, she and her family have to be seen to emotionally suffer to the highest degree, she and her family have to be seen to be penalised financially to the highest level by continuing the pregnancy, having the most expensive birth, the most expensive interventions, the most expensive death.

Works out well for profitmaking medical organisations, though. If she's actually covered by insurance, they're going to rake it in from each of those women - and if she's not, well, there could be a home, a vehicle, salaries - loads of money.

No. Because a foetus is not the same as a baby or infant.

So in what way did having abortion rights to viability (i.e. term) save lives? The figures show that infants who would have been aborted because they had abnormalities incompatible with life were brought to term and then died (possibly in great pain, which is certainly an issue).
Abortion would not have saved the lives of children born of unmarried parents, the very poor etc., those infants would not have been born.
The issue here is two-fold. A too restrictive abortion policy which does not allow for abortion in cases where the infant is incapable of life (e.g. anencephaly) along poor public health, poor contraception provision and poor health care of mothers from some demographics (e.g. black mothers, poor mothers of any ethnicity).
The UK has a restrictive abortion law (less restrictive than in other parts of Europe, however) which allows termination of any pregnancy up to 24 weeks (point of viability) but also allows later abortion if the infant in utero has a condition incompatible with life, and obviously for when the infant dies in utero (to save the life of the mother). Ectopic pregnancies have to be terminated, there is no other choice and an abortion policy that said ectopic pregnancies could not be terminated would lay HCP open to charges of manslaughter, I would think. The UK law works well and is not an issue - except in what counts as disability i.e. abortion ought not to be allowed for club foot, cleft palette etc (though a cleft palette can indicate other abnormalities which will arise later, it is not that usual and a simple operation repairs the cleft - I was born with a cleft palette and I am fine, with a corrected speech defect).
The US has religion on steroids in some places and needs to teach biology properly and also reform its health care system. That's about all these reports show. That is, if you have stupid laws you will have stupid (and dangerous) outcomes.

@Hermyknee

The problem with this debate is that we think that if we present a horrific and traumatic enough example to someone who shares the beliefs of @ThejoyofNC then they will say that in that case yes, they would prioritise the pregnant woman (or girl) over the foetus.

I suppose at least that poster is honest about the fact that they wouldn't do so. It doesn't make it any less upsetting to hear someone care so little for the women (or girls) who are pregnant.

@ThejoyofNC so if a woman was pregnant through incest and the foetus had deformities (more likely with incest) which meant its brain or heart or another organ were developing outside its body or not at all, resulting in the fact it will die either inside the woman (causing expensive and life threatening conditions for the woman who was the main caregiver for her other children), or soon after an assisted birth, you would still want her to continue the pregnancy?

At what point is the woman and her family more important than a unviable foetus?

At first I thought that was one of the most insensitive thread hijacks I've seen but actually, its should stand so that everyone can see exactly what these 'pro lifer's' stand for.

I just cannot understand why? Why cause the unnecessary suffering of a baby and a woman? I can't imagine how awful it must be forced to give birth knowing your baby will suffer and die shortly after birth.

I'm pro-choice but I can kind of see the logic of pro-lifers when it's about the potential for a healthy child. I just can't see the logic for this though. It just seems so cruel.

I do hope that @ThejoyofNC and all those who agree with his/her standpoint are willing to pay the medical expenses caused by their tenets, for the mothers and the babies.

@HaPPy8

There are women who choose to continue pregnancies of babies who will not live very long due to the conditions they have who would find your view very upsetting too. Carers will do much to prevent pain for these babies. I have been involved in caring for women who make this choice. Your articulated beliefs have ramifications too.

I genuinely apologise if my post was poorly worded, truly. And would hate it to cause upset to anyone.

I completely appreciate that some women would choose to go through with such a pregnancy and have reasons for wanting to do so. I can understand that for some women that would be the right choice for them. They should be fully supported. I think that it might be the choice I would make too in some situations.

The important bit of my post, I suppose, was that the PP would have women go through this against their will in her ideal world. That is the unthinkable trauma I mentioned. To be legally forced to go through the pregnancy and birth against their wishes.

I can't imagine a much more traumatic experience than having to do that against your will.

There are women who choose to continue pregnancies of babies who will not live very long due to the conditions they have who would find your view very upsetting too. Carers will do much to prevent pain for these babies. I have been involved in caring for women who make this choice. Your articulated beliefs have ramifications too.

I am pro choice but the arguments are nuanced and I can see from both sides. Debate it’s important.

@ThejoyofNC

Thanks for being honest about it rather than backtracking.

I can't in good faith engage much further with someone who would wish to legally force a woman or girl, against her wishes, to carry and give birth to a baby that will die shortly afterwards despite the almost unthinkable trauma that every step of that process would cause her. Despite knowing the baby will live a very short time afterwards and if incompatible with life, probably a painful time too.

I hope you find it in your heart one day to consider the ramifications of your beliefs.

Have a good day.

Yes, that is my belief.

@ThejoyofNC

It's saying that if the parents had been allowed to have an abortion then the babies wouldn't have died. Except they would have, wouldn't they.

Just to be clear, if a baby has a condition that means doctors know they will only live for a matter of hours or days once born, do you still believe that the morally right thing (in your ideal world, if you were making the rules) is for the mother to be legally required continue the pregnancy and give birth rather than terminate when the incompatibility with life after birth is discovered?

And get into crippling medical debt for the privilege of doing so

OK, so it's a good thing to force the mother to give birth even though ,as you state, the babies would have died anyway?

OK. I can see that it is definitely frustrating/upsetting to some people to see that wording, although it is aligned with current medical standards (which I know you also disagree with and these things do change over time so I'm not saying they're fixed or fact just current standards).

However, I see it like palliative care for terminal patients. We try to minimise their pain and suffering. These babies didn't have that option.

But then I'm also for assisted dying if it is tightly regulated. I just don't think people should have to experience unnecessary pain, especially if their condition is terminal.

This is hardly a surprise is it? People are being forced to carry higher risk pregnancies, whatever the reason may be. It's extremely worrying that Vance is attacking UK abortion protection laws in speeches. With the global rise of the far right and abortion still technically being criminal here.

I've got plenty of arguments against abortion but they're not allowed on this site and I'm also not an arsehole who would share those views on a site where people come for abortion support.

Researchers estimate there were 478 infant deaths across 14 states which have outright bans or heavy restrictions - which they say would not have occurred had the laws not been in place.
This is the very first paragraph and it's a lie. It's saying that if the parents had been allowed to have an abortion then the babies wouldn't have died. Except they would have, wouldn't they.