Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.
The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.
But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”
For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.
Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.
Wow, you’re completely incapable of basic reasoning. I mean, I’d have assumed as much, but I tried to give you a chance to prove you could think. Ah well, my mistake.
Those are unrelated, again. You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?! Same energy.
Not really, given that it’s the commonly used definition and we’re not talking in a medical setting here. I used it colloquially, not professionally, so I’m grabbing the colloquial definition. You want to use the medical one because it specifies a different species and makes my colloquial use of the word technically incorrect (the best kind), but I refuse to give a fuck
Oh, look, here’s the relevance: by your own logic if a fetus is a person then a caterpillar is a butterfly. If you cant grasp that then I fear for anyone who has to be around you any time you operate sharp objects.
Yeah, forcing births through regulation does that. It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you. Rightly so, you monster
Why is it relevant? All you’re saying there is literally just “This argument is absurd, it’s vaguely similar to your argument, therefore your argument is absurd.”
I didn’t know antiwhatever was relevant to the debate. However, the definition of personhood is. And you don’t seem to know what a person is.
What did you think of the other colloquial definition I provided for you? Like I said, it seems to line up more with your ideology, it’s even simpler than the one you gave, and it can justify killing anyone you want to!
I don’t know if it bothers you that it uses a word you don’t understand, but hey, up to you.
Again, you’re arguing from an illogical comparison. You haven’t explained why a fetus isn’t a person, and I have explained why it is. I mean, you’ve called me and my idea stupid, but that doesn’t make your actual judgement of it any clearer. Would you like to tell me so we can discuss it? Or do you just want to keep trying to chisel away at my definition like the world’s worst sculptor? The fact you’re this intent on not directly answering a very relevant question, along with this implication that I’m a bad person for wanting to protect life, are kind of weird, don’t you think?
Pro-life births are higher in Democrat counties, too.
It tends to produce people who vehemently agree with me, too, And people who are ambivalent. It really just tends to produce people in general.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
And to think, you’re the one who called me bitter. Projection, thy name is gamermanh.