this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
1009 points (98.9% liked)

News

23296 readers
3568 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Amber Nicole Thurman's death from an infection in 2022 is believed to be the first confirmed maternal fatality linked to post-Roe bans.

Reproductive justice advocates have been warning for more than two years that the end of Roe v. Wade would lead to surge in maternal mortality among patients denied abortion care---and that the increase was likely to be greatest among low-income women of color. Now, a new report by ProPublica has uncovered the first such verified death. A 28-year-old medical assistant and Black single mother in Georgia died from a severe infection after a hospital delayed a routine medical procedure that had been outlawed under that state's six-week abortion ban.

Amber Nicole Thurman's death, in August 2022, was officially deemed "preventable" by a state committee tasked with reviewing pregnancy-related deaths. Thurman's case is the first time a preventable abortion-related death has come to public attention since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ProPublica's Kavitha Surana reported.

Now, “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion-rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, during a call with media. “It cannot go on.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 181 points 2 months ago (6 children)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 92 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It has never been "pro-life" or about saving the lives of "children". This has always been about controlling women.

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Most aren't aware, but this is the crux of the issue. Evangelicals do not value equity and presume others are ignorant/incorrect.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Doubtless you have that. Off the top of my head, you should expect to find:

  1. Those who want to control women.
  2. Those who are uncomfortable with the control aspect but want to get elected.
  3. Pro choice people who want to get elected.
  4. A mix of comfort and discomfort with the ideas of pro choice and controlling women, but still want to get elected.
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

Fascists don't just lie, they invert the truth precisely.

Trickle-down economics, for example, was pitched as "a rising tide lifts all boats", when in reality trickle down economics is the exact opposite of that. A rising tide lifting all boats would be the poorest person getting money until they have as much money as the second poorest person, then those two getting money until they have as much money as the third poorest person, and so on. Lying, reality-inverting fascists got up on a stage--in front of people-- and said that process was the same as giving the people with the most money even more money.

In a way it's brilliant, because it's so brazenly and bafflingly stupid that it acts like an EMP for logical thought. Which they know, and intentionally utilize. The most important skill a fascist has to have is the ability to make people stupid enough to vote for them. What better way than to go for the jugular and assault reality itself?

With an incessant anti-reality static, courtesy of your fox newses and heritage foundations, reality offers no obstacle at all.

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Stop using “prolife” as a term.

It frames their stance positively, call it what it is: “anti-choice”

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

"Forced-breeders"

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Medical slavery enthusiasts.

[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Pro-forced birth.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago
[–] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

They are pro-life, just not your life.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No they are not pro life, and they should never be allowed to use that term or make that claim without protests.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They are anti-abortion. That is as far as it goes. They don't care about giving an expecting mother pre-natal care if she can't afford it. The certainly don't give a shit about post-natal care. And if there's something wrong with her baby an they both die? That's "god's will."

All they care about is making and keeping abortion illegal. It's that binary of an issue for them and it's sick.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's so fucking comical to me too that they call it "god's will" when children die of the most horrifying, excruciating diseases imagnable long before they're capable of understanding what's happening, but when a pregnant woman makes an informed decision not to die during childbirth over a shrimp living inside her taco, that's a bridge too far, and the all-mighty creator and ruler of the universe is very disappointed in you for killing one of his children when he was powerless to stop it.

Sweetie, maybe your fairytale sugar daddy's will isn't all that benevolent. 💀

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You would think that an omnipotent being could just prevent any abortion from happening if he didn’t want them to happen.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, no, you see it's free will. Which makes total sense, because god can't possibly foresee what we're going to do, which is a problem omniscient beings definitely struggle with. Or if he can foresee what we're going to do and he is omniscient, then he's not omnibenevolent because he had exact foreknowledge of what was going to happen and let it anyway. After all, why "test" if you already know the precise outcome if not to watch people suffer for fun? If you need people to learn lessons, why can't you just magically teach them those lessons? And if you're not capable of this, how are you omnipotent?

Pick at most two of the three; you can't have all of them.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think everyone ever claimed the Abrahamic god to be benevolent.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Christians are routinely taught that god is not just loving ("benevolent") but all-loving ("omnibenevolent"). Here's the Pope talking about how "tender" and "astonishing" and "gratuitous" god's love is. 4:8 of the First Epistle of John in the Bible – part of the de jure and de facto source of truth about god for Christianity – reads: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Sure we could reduce that down to "omnibenevolent as long as you love him back", as e.g. Proverbs 8:17 says "I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me." But even then, god heavily abuses those who love him. The Bible tries to justify this bizarre cosmic domestic abuse in the book of Job, but it's one of the most ridiculous, fucked up stories imaginable where god literally bets with Satan that he can fuck up one of his most devoted follower's life as much as he wants and he still won't turn away from him.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They are also against contraception, because they are pro forced birth.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'd say they were pro forced birth except, as we see in this example, they don't even care if there is no birth.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

They have a concept of a birth.

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Seeing that they oppose school lunches, gun control and free healthcare, not your children's lives either.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

They are pro forced birth. They don't care about infants, children, or adults.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

If they were pro-life and consistent that lives are more important than human rights, they would also be clamoring for gun control on the basis of saving children's lives in schools. Or, fuck, universal healthcare is an easy one, higher taxes for the wealthy aren't even harming anyone's rights and it saves lives.

But it is actually about controlling women with medical slavery and claims about saving lives are all lies they don't actually believe.

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

I propose to stop using "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Instead use "pro-quantity" and "pro-quality".

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

You're right it's not pro-lefe, it's really anti-choice.