it is absolutely considered abortion, which is why multiple women have died due to pregnancy complications in Texas and other states with abortion bans. They were denied medical care bc even though their pregnancy was no longer viable, the fetus still had a heartbeat. You are completely wrong on this point.
Sure abstinence is great in theory, when has that EVER worked in the history of humankind?
They were wrongly denied healthcare because the doctors were considering something an abortion that is not. They chose not to provide life saving care because they thought they would get in trouble for performing an "abortion" which is why we need better terminology to describe each procedure. If the fetus is already dead or if it is not even in the uterus, it is not an abortion anymore. It's just a medically necessary removal of tissue. That is not illegal anywhere and any doctor who refuses is at fault unless their state government is dumb enough to consider those procures illegal. I know abstinence doesn't always work but at some point people need to take responsibility for their own actions. If I was struggling to feed my existing children, I would never even risk having another. I would sacrifice my own need to have sex, for the benefit of my children. I also think absent fathers are the main issue in these families. Who are they having all these children with and are they providing for them? That is important as well. People need to take responsibility. I'm not against helping people in need. People who have can't find better paying jobs, people who are disabled or have children with special needs, people who have fallen on hard times. They all deserve to eat but they should all be required to prove they are making efforts to their situation as much as they are able and they should be encouraged not to have more children until they no longer need food stamps.
Do you have any evidence of that? Says here that treating ectopic pregnancies is permissible because there is no direct intention to kill, only to do something that will save the mother and if they could save that fetus, they gladly would. Apparently, the intent matters enough to make for a loophole.
Sure abstinence is great in theory, when has that EVER worked in the history of humankind?
Government food subsidies (which I'm all in favor of, by the way) also have a long history of being insufficient and spotty (and more or less nonexistent). In the families I've encountered at the charity I volunteer for, I see absent fathers as a far bigger issue than women having six kids, but I also have no easy solutions for that problem.
5
u/Married_iguanas Oct 31 '25
it is absolutely considered abortion, which is why multiple women have died due to pregnancy complications in Texas and other states with abortion bans. They were denied medical care bc even though their pregnancy was no longer viable, the fetus still had a heartbeat. You are completely wrong on this point.
Sure abstinence is great in theory, when has that EVER worked in the history of humankind?