840

A dramatic rise in pregnant women dying in Texas after abortion ban (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You'd think this would give republicans pause, or make them reconsider.

Young women dying in dramatically increasing numbers.

But it won't.

All these young women left to die on the altar of their misinterpretation of their religion and their uncaring principles.

But no, it was a policy born in hate and the tragic imposed deaths of women are not an unfortunate side effect, they're just misogyny in action. Working itself out.

If they cared about babies, there would be more support for women, for early years interventions, and maybe they might also care about children dying in schools on the altar of their misunderstanding of their 2nd amendment and their uncaring principles.

But no, they don't care about children dying in schools either, and do you know why? Because caring about children dying in schools doesn't involve telling women what they have to do and ruling their lives with oppressive freedom-denying laws.

Caring about children dying in schools would involve some infringement on their UNDENYABLE RIGHT TO FEEL IMPORTANT with a gun and caring about women dying in childbirth would interfere with their UNDENYABLE RIGHT TO FEEL IMPORTANT with a rule about what women can and can't do.

[+] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -6 points 2 months ago

Are you implying being against abortion is a misinterpretation of the Bible? How?

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Edit: I think that's a genuine question from someone who is surprised by me calling it misinterpretation and has engaged with another perspective politely and unlike many people, is listening as well as expressing their point of view. I wish more people responded like that with a request for information and respectful discussion afterwards. Evidence shows that the "How?" was genuine. Hence my upvote.

I don't know any religious people who think abortion is great, but I don't know any pro-choice folk who think it's great either, they just think it shouldn't land a woman or a health professional in jail and they don't like that the maternal death rate is climbing so fast in Texas which had the first five-week abortion limit in the states.

Before the republicans figured they could be really judgemental and condemnatory about it (what does your Bible say about that kind of behavior?) and use it as a wedge issue to drive religious folks away from the democrats, it was originally a catholic-only thing to be absolutely opposed to abortion for a long time, justified by a misinterpretation of the sin of Onan, which the catholics somehow took to be a lesson about semen not being allowed on the floor, when it's quite clearly about family duty and not help to provide a kid for his brother's young widow who would otherwise be childless - held to be shameful for her. He wasn't kind. I think you could boldly interpret that story to be pro IVF but I don't think you can interpret it to be anti-abortion and anti women's choice unless you're really baked-in misogynistic before you think about it.

Yeah I know it says "do not murder" but the abortion bans are literally killing women with already dead foetuses because no health professional can afford to risk their career and freedom to take any step whatsoever to save their lives until it's obvious enough that they're at death's door that the court couldn't conclude otherwise. "She might have died later" isn't compelling enough - "she was coding" is.

I challenge you to find a bible passage explicitly condemning abortion. I can find you at least ten explicitly condemning judgementalism, but also condemning not caring for the poor, not caring for foreigners, walking by when others are suffering, not healing someone when you can. The modern republican party is so far from "What Would Jesus Do?" and worships the liar in chief, Donald J Trump.

So yes, somehow a bunch of big american corporate churchgoers got convinced that being rich is a sign you are a good person, that stopping abortion is the main lesson from the scriptures and that caring about black people, foreigners, poor people etc is evil. Somehow "let the person who did nothing wrong cast the first stone.... go, I don't condemn you either" became "lock her up". If you don't think that's a misinterpretation of your Bible, yours is different to the ones I've seen.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

think that's a genuine question from someone

Flax is rather well-known for being an entrenched-in-their-thoughts religious zealot, that's why the downvotes, it's not genuine

So much so that I'm rather convinced they're some weirdo pretending to be an insane person for the lols

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 months ago

I actually agree with a good chunk of what you said. I thank you for not strawmanning me or making presumptions of being like how you described. The Bible advocates for caring for the poor, not judging hypocritically, for caring for the suffering and sick, and that I believe Trump is an antichrist and not Christian at all.

I'd also like to note that I agree with Abortion if it's simply removing a dead foetus. I see that as less of an abortion and more of removing a dead foetus that's already dead.

As for abortions in case of the pregnancy might kill the woman, those are exceedingly rare as is, but should still be allowed.

Anyway, for the question at hand:

I'll skip out in the commandment showing murder is bad, but of course murder being bad is a necessary principle.

We see a few instances in the Bible of unborn children being human lives. A notable example recorded by St Luke is John the Baptist. He leapt in the womb when Mary appeared carrying Jesus in her womb

Luke 1:41-42 ESV

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

Jacob and Esau fought each other in the womb, so were clearly conscious

Genesis 25:21-23 ESV

And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”

Instances of this are even recorded scientifically

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/video-shows-twins-fighting-womb/story?id=17848740

King David writes about children even being made by God in the poetry of the 139th Psalm

Psalm 139:13-14 ESV

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

So as the Bible doesn't say "thou shalt not kill a foetus", it is implying that foetus are human life. Worth noting that the Bible doesn't explicitly mention the Triune nature of God as we define, but the nature comes from reading the Bible and revealed through them and what it shows about each Person of God. It also doesn't explicitly condemn slavery but it's frequently protrayed in a bad light. Jesus doesn't demand worship, but is shown being God and receiving it. So it doesn't have to be explicitly said. The Bible as a whole isn't a book of laws or a legal code.

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

I’d also like to note that I agree with Abortion if it’s simply removing a dead foetus. I see that as less of an abortion and more of removing a dead foetus that’s already dead.

Yes, that's not abortion, that's just D&C after the foetus died.

As for abortions in case of the pregnancy might kill the woman, those are exceedingly rare as is, but should still be allowed.

But it's the same D&C procedure whether the foetus was deliberately terminated or it died of natural causes, and a doctor performing a D&C is at real and genuine risk of losing their career and going to prison, and a woman in need of D&C is at risk of losing her fertility or her life from sepsis or other complications. Criminalizing healthcare kills women. Doctors need a lot of good luck keeping their job in a red state if they agree to perform a D&C. Don't rely on facts winning a case when anti-abortion rhetoric is one of the two main ways republicans have got and kept power.

It's clear that you think God loves unborn children. Do you think God loves women who stillbirth? They are at genuine risk of jail time because their baby died. Do you think God loves children who were raped? Do you think God wants rape victims to bear their rapists children? Do you believe that God always chooses the baby over the mother, no matter the cost or the consequences? Do you think God doesn't like it when we intervene in matters of life and death?

Do you, and this is the central question, and the only one that matters really, believe that God wants the government to put doctors and women in prison whenever an abortion is performed, and do you think God wants the increased maternal death rates amongst otherwise healthy women who have miscarried that these new policies are creating? Before you answer, please realise that early miscarriage is far, far more common and far far less admitted in public than people who have never admitted to having a miscarriage with other women in a safe environment realise. Are miscarriages hateful to God too? Is it the woman's fault, and should she go to prison if she can't prove her miscarriage was natural?

The second question is this: does God care more about putting women and doctors in prison after a foetus dies more than God cares about feeding the poor and the homeless? More than looking after foreigners? More than loving your neighbour and your enemy? Is it more important to love God or to love money?

Because what I see in america is a lot of people justifying being super condemnatory about women and immigrants and hating on helping, all in the name of religion, and I just don't see much of "love God and love your neighbour". No wonder young people are leaving the american church in droves. What's all that hate got that might draw them in? Maybe if it had more for them than the promise of jailing women and doctors, they might see the point, but a lot of church folks can't get past the jailing of women and doctors and the condemnation of sinners they judge to be particularly scandalously sinful, unless of course they're republicans or church leaders, in which case denial that anything went wrong. Not forgiveness, that would require an admission of guilt. Just minimisation and cover up.

I remember stories about Jesus getting cross with the temple being full of money and the religious leaders acting pious while making up hard and harsh rules for everyone else to follow (not so much themselves). Is it a relevant story for today? Isn't it really sad and far from following commandments if the church gets into the judging others and condemnation business? I don't think it was ever supposed to be about big theatres, big money, politics, professional music and plenty of prison time for plenty of sinners. Hadn't it better get back very urgently to what Jesus actually said to do?

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's clear that you think God loves unborn children. Do you think God loves women who stillbirth?

Yes. I never advocated jailing women who stillbirth

Do you think God loves children who were raped? Do you think God wants rape victims to bear their rapists children?

If someone is raped and gets pregnant and seeks an abortion, then it's the rapist who committed murder.

Do you believe that God always chooses the baby over the mother, no matter the cost or the consequences? Do you think God doesn't like it when we intervene in matters of life and death?

Again, this is exceedingly rare. But in such cases denying abortions would he wrong as you'd kill both the woman and child.

Do you, and this is the central question, and the only one that matters really, believe that God wants the government to put doctors and women in prison whenever an abortion is performed, and do you think God wants the increased maternal death rates amongst otherwise healthy women who have miscarried that these new policies are creating? Before you answer, please realise that early miscarriage is far, far more common and far far less admitted in public than people who have never admitted to having a miscarriage with other women in a safe environment realise. Are miscarriages hateful to God too? Is it the woman's fault, and should she go to prison if she can't prove her miscarriage was natural?

I don't think we should investigate women who have miscarriages. It's between them and God if they intentionally caused it.

The second question is this: does God care more about putting women and doctors in prison after a foetus dies more than God cares about feeding the poor and the homeless? More than looking after foreigners? More than loving your neighbour and your enemy? ls it more important to love God or to love money?

God doesn't care more or less about things. Every sin we commit on this earth is another bang of the hammer on His hands, the sin that we committed and killed Him.

Because what see in america is a lot of people justifying being super condemnatory about women and immigrants and hating on helping, all in the name of religion, and just don't see much of "love God and love your neighbour". No wonder young people are leaving the american church in droves. VWhat's all that hate got that might draw them in? Maybe if it had more for them than the promise of jailing women and doctors, they might see the point, but a lot of church folks can't get past the jailing of women and doctors and the condemnation of sinners they judge to be particularly scandalously sinful, unless of course they're republicans or church leaders, in which case denial that anything went wrong. Not forgiveness, that would require an admission of guilt. Just minimisation and cover up.

Matthew 7:21-23 ESV [21] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

What Christians do doesn't define Christianity. But we also must realise that we cannot bend the word of God to say whatever we want it to say. This goes both ways, I think. Like people trying to bend the verse about it easier for a camel to get through an eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven.

I remember stories about Jesus getting cross with the temple being full of money and the religious leaders acting pious while making up hard and harsh rules for everyone else to follow (not so much themselves). Is it a relevant story for today? lsn't it really sad and far from following commandments if the church gets into the judging others and condemnation business? don't think it was ever supposed to be about big theatres, big money, politics, professional music and plenty of prison time for plenty of sinners. Hadn't it better get back very urgently to what Jesus actually said to do?

Yes, that story is still relevant. But the Church must stand up for all injustice. Including if it means that children are being killed. In the same way we should stand against the destruction of the earth through climate change, black people being unjustly killed by American police, dying due to lack of healthcare, etc

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The Bible literally gives instructions for abortions. Numbers 5:11-31. It has no moral issues with terminating a fetus, doesn't call a fetus a person, doesn't call it murder.

None of your quoted examples negate the Bible's explicit support of abortion in this passage.

Even if the Bible did think fetuses were live humans, it also explicitly supports parents murdering their kids. Including the story of Abraham, and God killing Jesus. It's totally cool with the Bible to kill kids, if the kid belongs to you and you get the vibe "God" wants it. God does it a LOT. Sacrificing your kid for war is considered pretty standard in the Bible as well.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 2 months ago

I'm sorry but... what?

Numbers 5:11-31 ESV

[11] And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, [12] “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, [13] if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, [14] and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, [15] then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. [16] “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. [17] And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. [18] And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. [19] Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. [20] But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, [21] then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. [22] May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’ [23] “Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. [24] And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. [25] And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar. [26] And the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. [27] And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. [28] But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children. [29] “This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, [30] or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law. [31] The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.”

There's absolutely no mention of abortion here- in fact, verse 28 makes it clear that she "shall be free to conceive", so it shows that she wasn't even pregnant to begin with. It's clearly talking about a woman becoming infertile if she cheats on her husband, and nothing to do with an abortion or terminating a pregnancy. I don't know what conclusions you jumped to in order to even think this was about abortion

Also - parents murdering their kids - you realised that God explicitly stopped Abraham from murdering Isaac? It was about if he'd remain faithful to God even after his prayer is answered. God did NOT want Isaac to die, thus he provided a sacrificial ram.

With Jesus - Jesus wasn't merely a human kid - Jesus is God himself. Jesus is the same God who created the earth and everything in it. Jesus is the same God that we betrayed. Yet He died for us. What Abraham sacrificed was merely a ram, while God sacrificed Himself for us. Because God is perfectly merciful. He made the perfect sacrifice for what WE did. He lived the life we should have lived and died the death that we deserved. You cannot see this story and sum it up in "god supports us killing our kids"

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

What a bad translation, almost like it was deliberately translated badly. "Thigh fall away," lmfao what nonsense. Btw in the quoted text below, when they say "impure," "impurity," they mean pregnancy.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-31&version=NIV

‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

For the last 2 points - so you admit killing your own kid for God is seen as a virtue in the Bible, so much so that the 2 most important sons, Abraham and Jesus, both go through an event involving a parent killing them. And then there's literally dozens of events in tbe Bible of God killing kids. God loves child murder.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm sorry... Am I reading this correctly?

Did you just say the ESV was a bad translation and just cite the... NIV?????

Either you are really stupid or you HAVE to be a troll. If it's the former, the NIV is notoriously a bad translation, with it's main aim being to simplify the text with the translator's own interpretation. The benefit is that it's easier to read, but that's it. The NIV is the only translation which uses the term miscarry. Even the NRSV, a secular translation, says

Let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge;

"thigh" is a euphemism for womb. That's well known. So "womb" is a valid translation even though literally it says "thigh". But it's still clearly talking about a non pregnant woman becoming infertile. And the fact that the only thing you can use to justify your point is the NIV translation of it which shows you have no point at all

[21] וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ הַכֹּהֵ֥ן אֶֽת־הָֽאִשָּׁה֮ בִּשְׁבֻעַ֣ת הָאָלָה֒ וְאָמַ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ לָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה יִתֵּ֨ן יְהוָ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ךְ לְאָלָ֥ה וְלִשְׁבֻעָ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ עַמֵּ֑ךְ בְּתֵ֨ת יְהוָ֤ה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה׃

Still nothing here implying the miscarriage, and this is the Westminster Leningrad Codex. Is the Hebrew a bad translation, too? 🤣

For your last "rebuttal", you forgot again that Jesus is God - He sacrificed Himself for all of humanity. Abraham was following God and didn't sacrifice his son. The point was his loyalty- not the child sacrifice. Nothing's virtuous about it.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Why are they talking about a woman's womb at all unless they think she is pregnant? What does the womb "discharge?" Where does it say she is NOT pregnant? Why is pregnancy NOT a concern if she was laying with another man as the passage discusses?

I think this translation is valid. That you have to explain that "thigh falling," means "womb discharge," shows that your translation is a bad one. And a womb discharge is clearly another way of saying miscarriage.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago

Women have wombs when they're not pregnant? Ever heard of a period? Heavy periods? People would have been seen unclean in that society as well if they had constant periods and would have been infertile.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A period being induced when a woman is pregnant is another name for a miscarriage. Thank you for proving my point. If they are inducing a period with the bitter water, that's to cause a miscarriage.

The passage isn't about periods. There are indeed biblical passages about menstruation, but this isn't one. This passage is about a woman sleeping with a man who isn't their partner. So again, what are they making the womb "discharge" after this suspected infidelity?

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

But the passage doesn't say she's pregnant. You don't always get pregnant after the first time you sleep with someone 🤦

Interlinear verse, if that helps

https://scholarsgateway.com/parse/%D7%A0%D6%B9%D7%A4%D6%B6%D7%9C%D6%B6%D7%AA

No mention of miscarriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_menstrual_bleeding

A medical condition which matches this, also appears in Mark 5:25–34

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024

840 points (98.6% liked)

News

23376 readers

2137 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

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world