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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 months ago

    In one respect, they are similar: a caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly which it becomes, just like fetuses are to humans

    Ok so you DO understand, nice

    they are significantly different: no human society regards a butterfly’s life as highly as a born human’s

    And I was wrong. That’s irrelevant, what value we place on a butterfly relative to us isn’t important at all to me pointing out your logic would mean a caterpillar is a butterfly. All that matters is the way in which they are alike, which you agreed with. This is what mental gymnastics looks like, and it’s obvious to anyone not entrenched like you.

    What moral ramifications are there for stepping on a butterfly that wouldn’t be relevant if it was still a caterpillar, and vice versa? If there are none, then it makes no sense to compare the two on that basis.

    Nope, my point was simple that calling an earlier stage of a lifeform exactly the same thing as the later stage is silly. You wouldn’t call a caterpillar a butterfly, you wouldn’t call a fetus a person.

    I suspected you wouldn’t settle for a non-medical source for something with a precise technical definition

    Weird that you’d do that. Looks more like you hunted a specific definition that specifies cross-species requirements so you could try to well ackshully someone. Failed miserably because it’s easy to google what words mean.

    if you admit that killing innocent people is wrong

    I won’t, because your definition of “people” is faulty and I don’t want to say anything you’ll take wrongly. Its wrong to take a life in most situations, a fetus is not that.

    people is wrong and so is erasing personhood from human beings. If nobody here can admit that, then their disrespect means nothing to me.

    It pleases me to know bitter idiots like you are, in fact, a dying breed who will be remembered as the stains on history you are 🙂

    • @the_toast_is_gone
      link
      -42 months ago

      That’s irrelevant

      If this is irrelevant, so is your caterpillar argument.

      mental gymnastics

      You can’t even define what a person is and you’re accusing me of mental gymnastics?

      Looks more like you hunted a specific definition that specifies cross-species requirements so you could try to well ackshully someone. Failed miserably because it’s easy to google what words mean.

      Right, it’s very easy to Google what words mean. That’s why I found three different definitions. Sticking with one you found from a dictionary in the face of three more authoritative sources is odd - especially since the same page cites the Britannica article I linked in the last post. From the same page, this definition sounds like it lines up better with your ideology:

      a person who lives at the expense of another

      Anyway…

      I won’t, because your definition of “people” is faulty

      But you can’t explain why…

      and I don’t want to say anything you’ll take wrongly.

      …or what you think a person is. Would you like to share that, or are you going to continue hiding behind ambiguity because it’s easier to attack something you can actually understand?

      It pleases me to know bitter idiots like you are

      I suppose that’s one benefit of refusing to explain your arguments. Can’t be stupid if you never say anything at all!

      in fact, a dying breed who will be remembered as the stains on history you are 🙂

      Ironic, since pro-life people give birth more than pro-choice people.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        If this is irrelevant, so is your caterpillar argument.

        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.

        You can’t even define what a person is and you’re accusing me of mental gymnastics?

        Those are unrelated, again. You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?! Same energy.

        Sticking with one you found from a dictionary in the face of three more authoritative sources is odd

        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

        But you can’t explain why…

        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.

        Ironic, since pro-life people give birth more than pro-choice people.

        Yeah, forcing births through regulation does that. It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you. Rightly so, you monster

        • @the_toast_is_gone
          link
          -3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Wow, you’re completely incapable of basic reasoning.

          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.”

          You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?!

          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.

          I used it colloquially, not professionally, so I’m grabbing the colloquial definition

          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!

          a person who lives at the expense of another

          I don’t know if it bothers you that it uses a word you don’t understand, but hey, up to you.

          by your own logic if a fetus is a person then a caterpillar is a butterfly.

          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?

          forcing births through regulation does that.

          Pro-life births are higher in Democrat counties, too.

          It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you.

          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.

          Rightly so

          That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

          you monster

          And to think, you’re the one who called me bitter. Projection, thy name is gamermanh.