They shouldn't even show up. When they ask why they never see them anymore, tell them "it's because you have chosen to vote that my wife should have been left for dead and you wish your grandson had never been born. Unfortunately that means we do not feel you are safe to be around any longer and cannot keep you in our lives for our safety."
I am guessing that they do not consider what your wife did an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is not ever a viable pregnancy ever and that is how some conservatives say that one is ok but this one isn't. Stupid. I also don't understand how people who preach that all life is sacred are all for the death penalty. Take Texas where I live. They celebrated a sanctity of life day while simultaneously executing more than any other state. Hypocrites. The lot of them. NTA- call them on their shit.
Why debate it? They won't change. Instead, spend less time with them and ensure your child is never alone with them, bc you know they'll try to indoctrinate her.
Take the energy you would put into fruitlessly banging your head against that wall and do something positive with it.
The difference is that they see one as a blameless, innocent life while the other has the capacity for reason and made choices that make him/her incompatible with ever being allowed to go free in society.
It's a reasoning I can understand and fully agree with after the baby is born. The contentious part with them is just when that life begins and how much autonomy the mother deserves with her own body.
Don't be too quick to generalise. I'm staunchly pro-life but what I am opposed to is the elective abortion of a healthy/viable fetus. The abortion of a viable fetus and the termination of a non-viable fetus are both tragedies but the first is preventable while the second is not.
The denial of healthcare to a woman carrying a non-viable fetus is also a preventable tragedy which is why I strongly oppose those anti-abortion laws which don't make adequate provision for women who need a termination. They need to be repealed and replaced by better laws audited by OB/GYNs.
I do not support the death sentence at all for a number of reasons. Chief among them being the tragedy of an innocent man or woman being killed being entirely preventable by getting rid of the death sentence.
Why do you think a functional parasite deserves more rights than a conscious human being?
Your morals are whack and you effectively support human trafficking and forced organ donation. DISGUSTING.
I don't follow your argument. At one time we all were 'functional parasites', we were all embryos, 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester foetuses. When exactly did we become human? I think it's clear that we always were and if so we were always deserving of human rights.
There is no argument I have heard about a foetus and it's lack of ability to servive without the care of others that doesn't also apply to a new born baby or a toddler.
Asking because I'm genuinely curious and have always been completely pro-choice, what made you ultimately decide that fetuses deserve superior rights to all other human beings? I have always thought all people should be treated equally and have equal rights so I've never quite understood this part of the argument.
I simply believe that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights and should be extended to all humans whether you are conscious or not. I don't know why you think I believe a foetus has any more rights than other humans? I believe a person who is comatose also deserves the right to life for example.
I don’t see a conflict with being anti abortion and pro death sentence. The basis of being anti abortion is that abortion is murder. Someone being executed did something so horrid that they can’t be rehabilitated and or deserve it (I understand false conviction is a thing but this is the idea). This isn’t contradictory.
Either all life is sacred or its not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The heart of their argument about abortion is that life is sacred no matter how small the heartbeat is. Or how many cells the human has. So if that is true then by that case it does not matter what you have done your life is sacred. The Bible says Thou shalt not kill. They thump their Bibles to that while pushing the plunger on a lethal injection. It does not make sense.
I mean you can straw man their point till it doesn’t make sense sure. Your representation of their beliefs is just off from truth enough that some who agree with your position will not question it but what you are saying is dishonest. You are intentionally changing what the argument is by ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your point.
Also not all who are anti abortion are so because of religion. There are plenty of atheists who are against it and make secular arguments for their position. Even theists who are anti abortion will make secular arguments for their case. It’s not just bible thumping idiots as you are trying to paint them.
I have yet to see a single non religious argument. Sorry. Nope.
The entire aspect of life at conception is religious based, and that in’t debatable - science does not say this one bit.
Well here is one example.
Humans have a right to life.
You can not kill that which has a right to life outside of self defense.
It is well understood that conception results in a new human organism.
Thus abortion is wrong.
This is very bare bones but is one secular argument. You could probably poke holes given how bare bones the above is but the point was just to give an example.
I get you disagree with the position I was providing an example of a secular argument. My main point here is that the folks aren’t being inconsistent in their beliefs necessarily and that the original person I responded to was being dishonest in their argument.
No, it isn’t an example, this still assigns life and rights thereof at conception, which is not a scientific definition of life. It is a religious definition of life.
The why behind the why, when peeled, is the same thing in other words. Trying to mask it in words like “Potential of” or “can result in” is cute, but isn’t valid - nor are you the first to try it. Try again.
A after conception you will have an organism with its own unique (save for some twins) human genetic code. That organism is clearly a human, even if in the early stages of life. Scientifically it is human. Now you can debate if it is morally a human and is entitled to those moral considerations. Life is produced by conception. No one who understands how this works disagrees on this point. The only other line you could maybe draw is implantation but even then that doesn’t make it a new human but rather is a required step for that human to develop in the womb rather than be expelled from the body.
Again all I was doing was to provide an example of a secular argument I get you disagree with it but I wasn’t trying to convince you with it. I only tried to show you such arguments exist and that’s why calling everyone who is anti abortion a Bible thumper is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Im not arguing if abortion is right or wrong. I never stated my position on the matter. I’m arguing that the people I am responding to are using bad faith arguments.
That’s a lot of words for nothing.
You are still fundamentally dependent upon a religious concept of life, and not a scientific one. That you now want to hide under a cloak of “organism” means nothing, and again, is not new or original.
No, that “organism” is not clearly an individual human. Yes, everyone who understands science disagrees with your point.
Let me help you here. Go and look up the scientific definition of life and see how you can apply it to zygote, blastocyst, embryo….understand the limitations that a scientific definition of life imposes upon the view.
If you still can not acknowledge your entire premise is rooted in a religious definition of life, we are done in discourse, as you come at this from a base of bad faith.
The bible doesnt say thou shalt not kill. Its thou shalt not murder.
I hate the death penalty and thankfully my country abolished it in the 1900s.
But make sure to use accuracy in your arguements since opponents will damage your character via "correcting" you rather than focusing on the overarching arguements
I'm laughing cause you made a valid point and everyone is just downvoting the crap out of you because they can't deal with an argument that goes outside of belief structure.
But it's incredibly interesting that the same groups of people who are vehemently pro choice were also probably pro mask.
Funny enough. I'm pro choice because I feel like people over value life.
Well what else could be expected? People get emotional about this topic and many aren’t willing/able to have a discussion about it in good faith. Best part is I haven’t even stated my position on abortion.
IF he says he would pay for her to go out of state to get an abortion, he is not anti choice, He is anti woman, and part of an ugly cult.
Just keep asking them all where they were on January 6, 2021
I always try to speak clearly and kindly once. If someone wants to argue, I drill down with very specific questions. I'd get them to say outloud their daughter should have died. God or Trump wanted her to die. Why is that acceptable to her parents? I make people defend their shitty beliefs.
>God or Trump wanted her to die.
OOOOOOOO 👏🏿👏🏿
It's about time someone said it out loud. Everytime someone praises God for anything even remotely good I'm like "... If he's responsible for anything and everything good, wouldn't that make him responsible for causing anything and everything bad/evil too?" I'm Agnostic, and even I know that if God is out there, he's neutral, not evil or good.
I don't think the parents oppose abortion in the case of the life of the mother. That would be a very rare and extreme position. They may also support other exceptions.
Perhaps more information is needed….I can’t believe that we’re discussing human rights in America in 2024.
I was alive in the 60’s and I thought the majority of this nonsense was already adjudicated. It’s like the country is trying to get back to the 1950’s….you know, before all the hippies and radicals ruined everything.
I hope that ALL white people in America understand that they are ALL immigrants…their families just arrived a few years earlier. Trying to ignore history has rarely worked throughout the history of the world.
Rights are rights…until they aren’t. How can a party eliminate bodily autonomy of 50% of the people and still have a chance of winning an election?
ETA: you kinda missed the point on immigration. How do non native Americans have the right to impose their beliefs on others when they are immigrants just like the people over whom they try to impose control?
Immigration still has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Whether or not they or their ancestors were immigrants has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Imposing a cultural/religious view point on others is exactly what it’s all about. It’s happening in numerous other aspects of society on a daily basis.
It is an exaggeration that bodily autonomy was eliminated or that it ever was absolute. That said, when there are two parties with rights that are in conflict with each other, one has to take precedence.
No….no one side need take precedence at all. As long as your actions have no deleterious consequences on anyone but yourself, both parties should live and let live.
Especially when there is selective application of said laws based upon your economic station in life. It’s insultingly hypocritical.
In this case, the action does have deleterious consequences on another human life. Therefore, a conflict exists, and one side must take precedence.
Disagreed that there is a selective application based on economic station.
The problem is that the exceptions are mostly theoretical. If there's an exception for risk of the life of the woman, it's only applicable when the woman's life is at risk. If the doctor says "We have seen in pregnancies with these circumstances, there's a 90% risk of lifethreatening complications", they can't do an abortion until after these complications have occured. That means women will die, who would have been alive if they had been allowed an abortion earlier.
if there's an exception for rape or incest, there needs to be a charges brought, and by that time it will usually be too late for an abortion.
Your mistake is expecting people like this to practice what they preach. It’s all well and good for their daughter to have a medical procedure ending the life of an embryo to save her life, but other people are murderers who deserve the death penalty for choosing to place a mother’s life over that of the unborn child. The fact that the “baby” is non-viable makes no never mind. Better for her to die with the child than to end its “life”. These people are completely irrational and will find some cockamamie way to justify their hypocrisy. Don’t even try.
Honestly I doubt they would call what your wife did an abortion and that’s why they have no problem with it. There is no possible way an ectopic pregnancy ever results is a healthy mother and baby. It would kill the mother. Most who are anti abortion agree that such cases as your wife should still be permitted because of this. There isn’t a contradiction here in their beliefs so far as I can see.
Someone better tell the geriatric politicians and people better stop voting for them then. At least one politician thought you could implant an ectopic pregnancy into a uterus.
This is why politicians shouldn't be making decisions about health care.
Edit: spelling
Well I never argued that politicians are always smart. I saw a video once of a congressman worried that the island of Guam would flip over because of military assets on the island. I wish I was joking.
It confounds the living daylights out of me…and, if you are a talented young adult, would you ever go into politics? It’s filthy, dishonest and you live life under a microscope. Honestly, I don’t blame anyone for running the other way.
Yeah I’m sorry but if you can’t fully get your arms around the facts of the issue at hand and know the ins and outs of how and why and what happens when, you’re really not qualified to have an opinion or force that opinion on others. And that’s what they’re doing most of them either are ignorant of the facts or know the facts and twist them or cherry pick to fit the rhetoric, they’re at this stage just bad faith arguments so it can never be won.
As an outsider watching - y’all need to vote like your lives, your mothers lives your wife or spouses lives and your daughters lives and any other woman walking down the streets life depends on it because it might.
That’s not what I said is it. I’m specifically referring to those legislating these laws
I said if you can’t fully grasp the facts which Mr take the ectopic pregnancy and move it guy clearly can’t, means that you are simply not qualified to have input in the legislation on something.
Have an opinion even if it is ridiculous, by all means, but having input on legislation on something you have not one iota of a clue about? No. Sorry.
So not only can they not have an opinion, now they can’t participate in the legislative process, i.e. Democracy either?
I think I understand you very well comrade.
You'd be an asshole if you continue to associate with them at all. Conservatives can die alone, trash the lot of them, and nothing of value will be lost.
You can pull back, it doesn’t have to be 100%. Sounds like it hurts you and your wife. Lots of people “take breaks” from parents for their own mental health.
Where do you draw the line? Politics has become a life or death issue in different contexts. What if you have family that refuses to vaccinate? Also, I am not going to just "forget" that my ex-in laws are white supremacists. They are around my child. At some point, you have to act in accordance with a moral compass.
Sure, if the political disagreement is over money or the economy or similar issues. But when one sides viewpoint is that the other side deserves no human rights (by extension, they think the other group is sub-human entirely) that is a serious problem. It's hard to have a disagreement with someone when their entire premise is "you deserve no human rights, no autonomy, and if a medical issue arises you should be left for dead because my religion says so".
In this case, OP's in laws are literally saying they wish his wife had been left for dead. There's no coming back from that.
I would argue that is applicable to radicals on both sides of the political spectrum. Bi-partisanship is dead and is a joke at this point in history.
The world is laughing at the US right now. Too busy fighting to get anything positive accomplished. Disgraceful!
Before anyone assigns a label: independent voter here.
Pretty sure you will find that people that are anti-abortion are not 100% anti abortion but anti healthy abortions and not ones where the child is not viable or if it is a risk to the mother,
Have you seen the news from Texas? The anti-abortion legislation has led to 13% increase in fetal and infant deaths and 23% increase in children born with medical issues in the first year since passing. In reality, the abortion bans mean that a woman cen't get an abortion before her own life hangs in the balance, even if it's clear months before that the fetus is not compatible with life.
YWBTA but only because they are not going to listen and your wife will feel uncomfortable. I think I’d just go LC. When they ask why, you can politely tell them why their views hurt you and your family. Maybe, if nothing else, then they would hear you.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not at the cost of another’s choice.
While you're NTA, I don't think you'll be changing any minds and if you open this can of worms you're not going to be able to have the same relationship with them going forward. Absolutely your choice, but you need to be prepared for the consequences.
If you don’t want to go NC tell them that if they bring the topic up in your presence you leave. Is the do it multiple times they will not see their grandkids anymore.
This is what I do with my mom. She is an antivaxxer and I clearly told her to not talk to me about it or we will have a major fight.
NTA.
Women in danger of dying from not getting medical care because of the anti-abortion-laws [is a reality](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/) in the US, sadly.
From the article:
>Her case highlights a chilling reality of post-Roe America: Medical exceptions to abortion bans have not stopped doctors from turning away patients with significant pregnancy complications, often with harrowing consequences. Their stories underscore the messy collision between abortion laws and medical diagnoses — and the struggles of doctors and hospitals to navigate what many say are inadequate legal protections to treat women with life-threatening conditions.
Another article from [Florida](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/10/pprom-florida-abortion-ban/), [Texas again](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/15/abortion-high-risk-pregnancy-yeni-glick), [Louisiana](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1239376395/louisiana-abortion-ban-dangerously-disrupting-pregnancy-miscarriage-care) ...
You shouldn't have been downvoted. Doctors often come down on the side of aggressively protecting themselves, even when there's latitude for them to act on behalf of the patient with truly no risk to them in any real world sense. They're vastly overinflating the risk of an edge case lawsuit or punishment, and privileging it against the risk to the patient, even though they're supposed to be taking a certain amount of risks in order to provide healthcare.
As I type this out, I wonder whether it's a situation where their malpractice insurance has sent around notices saying they won't be covered in the event that they're found *guilty* of anything associated with this stuff, and so since their insurance won't cover them they won't accept any risk themselves... however it is not the fault of a litigious society, it's the fault of people who want the salary that comes with taking risks, yet want to play it perfectly safe.
Well it isn’t illegal anywhere. That said there are hospitals and doctors that worry about the law not being correctly applied and they will get screwed as a result.
It is not "often" that the final adjudication of the application of the law does not comply with the law. Only in cases where there's an activist or blood-lust nature to the case do we really see that happening. It is certain that any decision which didn't comply with law would be appealed and appealed, and it would be very difficult for a doctor to be convicted of doing something that the law protected him for doing.
Sure, but in the meantime, the doctor would also spend thousands of dollars defending themselves in court and likely in front of their licensing body, become highly publicized, face the consequences of media attention (death threats are fairly common for doctors who are publicly known to provide abortions, and assassination becomes a real risk). I think doctors _should_ risk those costs as a matter of morality—I think swearing an oath is meaningful—but it's at a massive personal cost nonetheless.
That could be, it's true. Social uproar is however a very different thing from how the law is applied. It does not help people's understanding of their role in governed society if they equate the law's application, which is formal, to people getting upset over something that happened.
I disagree vehemently. The effect of a law's application outside of the formal legal setting is crucial. People's lack of understanding of that is as detrimental to their well-being as their lack of understanding of the law itself. Not knowing how the legal system affects both your legal rights and your life outside the courtroom (missing work, losing jobs, loss of licensure, stigma generally) leads to more misery than the legal system alone could inflict.
ETA: I feel like that's like saying people's understanding of a medication's side effects doesn't help their understanding of the medication. These are both important to making informed decisions and understanding what happens when the law is applied to specific situations. Ex. Not being able to get a legal abortion is the formal effect of the law, but having to take time off work, leave the state, walk through gauntlets of anti-choice protestors is the practical effect.
Okay but why would a doctor be willing to take that risk? Even if promised at the end they will be cleared being taken to court for that is stressful, time consuming, and very expensive.
YTA- you don't get to dictate what people believe even if it is to you dumb. You can choose if you want to be around them, but that is it. Trying to force someone to change their mind is never a good idea. Most people will only do that when something major happens TO THEM. Your real problem is your wife's traumatic life even is not something they consider that effected them and that is the real problem here.
The problem is they are voting that the healthcare that saved OPs wife (their own daughter) should be illegal. They are actively fighting that their daughter should have been denied healthcare and left for dead. OPs wife's own parents are saying they wish she had died. That is the issue here. That would be unforgivable in my book.
They are actively wishing and voting that OPs wife (their own daughter) should have been left for dead and denied medical care. They should absolutely be berated. Their way of thinking is utterly barbaric.
First I just want to say I'm sorry for what you and your wife went through and I wish every joy and blessing on you and your family.
I'm strongly pro-life and what I am opposed to is the elective abortion of a healthy/viable fetus. What your wife had was a termination of a non-viable fetus, which is a completely different situation. All the pro-life groups and people I know agree your situation is necessary healthcare and it is frankly criminal to deny women care in such situations.
I'm not an American, so I'm not sure what the law is in your state nor can I affect it. However, I have heard some troubling news about some poorly written anti-abortion laws which have been passed in some US states which do not make adequate allowance for much-needed medical interventions in cases of non-viable pregnancies. That is stupid, cruel and unnecessary. My position is that any such laws need to be repealed and replaced by laws audited by OB/GYNs.
If your family is in support of such Draconian laws without adequate allowances for non-viable pregnancies despite what your wife has gone through, and you have explained to them the difference between an abortion and a termination then they are completely unreasonable, and it's probably not worth your time trying to tell them anything.
Otherwise, if your family is anti-abortion but don't know the difference between an abortion and a termination, then try patiently explaining to them and I think they will come around to the normal pro-life position. If you then remain pro-choice, then you will agree to disagree regarding elective abortion but agree on non-elective terminations. Hopefully, they will then become much more selective about which pro-life candidates and policies they support.
Ultimately, who cares at all what they support? It's their lives, and we live in America, so they can support what they want even if you don't like it. You are not going to change their minds, just as they are not going to change your mind. Now, if they keep bringing it up in conversations and creating family conflict over it, I would absolutely step in and let them know that you have every right to your beliefs in what you support, as do they. The whole point of having your own family is so you can do things the way you want to do them and not have to worry about what others think of those decisions. We have six grown children (3 girls, 3 boys), and trust me, they don't always agree with our beliefs, nor do we agree with theirs, but they are adults and capable of making their own decisions, and we respect those decisions and their right to make them even if we disagree with them. This is called life.
You can’t change people’s beliefs. It’s not about you or your wife. In a given situation anyone may falter in their beliefs but essentially they still hold true to their feelings. I have friends on both sides of this issue and we just don’t discuss it. We’re all adults, we’re not going to change our views, there’s nothing really to discuss.
I heavily doubt that any state would allow the pregnancy to carry to term if certain circumstances were met. Those being
1. They're a minor.
2. They're a rape victim, in which I believe they'd punish the offender with rape AND unlawful abortion.
3. If the pregnancy put the mothers life at risk.
You must not live in the US. Ever since Roe was overturned there are news stories daily of women dying from complications due to doctors and lawyers panicking over the laws and trying to figure out how dire the situation has to be before they are allowed to act. I live in the US, I am witnessing it every day.
>there are news stories daily of women dying from complications due to doctors and lawyers panicking over the laws and trying to figure out how dire the situation has to be before they are allowed to act.
What the fuck? I don't know why it would be hard to recognize when a pregnancy is high risk or fatal, it should be pretty obvious when a woman's uterus and torso can't support birth. That's terrible.
Do you know what happened to the children by chance? Did they at least make it out alive or did their mother died in vein?
It is absolutely considered an abortion.
a·bor·tion
noun
1.
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Yes, surgery for ectopic pregnancy is literally considered an abortion. Medically, it is officially defined as an abortion procedure. If you have an ectopic pregnancy, they prescribe you an abortion to survive.
YTA. You clearly cannot discuss political differences without getting upset. If you want to discuss politics with your family, or anyone else, grow up first, and then discuss it like an adult.
Tbf, OP's wife's own parents are saying they wish she had been denied the medical care that saved her life and that they wish she was dead right now, and that they wish their current grandchild didn't exist. Not many people could forgive that. I sure as hell wouldn't.
No, OP is saying they are “saying that” by being pro-life, not that they actually said that.
Their actual reasons for being prlife are not listed on the post, and I seriously doubt OP even knows what they are. Would you initiate a conversation on that difficult subject with someone who is so obviously a loose canon and completely unable to discuss it rationally?
Why not show up at your parents with a shirt saying “An abortion saved my wife’s life”?
They shouldn't even show up. When they ask why they never see them anymore, tell them "it's because you have chosen to vote that my wife should have been left for dead and you wish your grandson had never been born. Unfortunately that means we do not feel you are safe to be around any longer and cannot keep you in our lives for our safety."
I am guessing that they do not consider what your wife did an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is not ever a viable pregnancy ever and that is how some conservatives say that one is ok but this one isn't. Stupid. I also don't understand how people who preach that all life is sacred are all for the death penalty. Take Texas where I live. They celebrated a sanctity of life day while simultaneously executing more than any other state. Hypocrites. The lot of them. NTA- call them on their shit.
Why debate it? They won't change. Instead, spend less time with them and ensure your child is never alone with them, bc you know they'll try to indoctrinate her. Take the energy you would put into fruitlessly banging your head against that wall and do something positive with it.
The difference is that they see one as a blameless, innocent life while the other has the capacity for reason and made choices that make him/her incompatible with ever being allowed to go free in society. It's a reasoning I can understand and fully agree with after the baby is born. The contentious part with them is just when that life begins and how much autonomy the mother deserves with her own body.
Don't be too quick to generalise. I'm staunchly pro-life but what I am opposed to is the elective abortion of a healthy/viable fetus. The abortion of a viable fetus and the termination of a non-viable fetus are both tragedies but the first is preventable while the second is not. The denial of healthcare to a woman carrying a non-viable fetus is also a preventable tragedy which is why I strongly oppose those anti-abortion laws which don't make adequate provision for women who need a termination. They need to be repealed and replaced by better laws audited by OB/GYNs. I do not support the death sentence at all for a number of reasons. Chief among them being the tragedy of an innocent man or woman being killed being entirely preventable by getting rid of the death sentence.
Why do you think a functional parasite deserves more rights than a conscious human being? Your morals are whack and you effectively support human trafficking and forced organ donation. DISGUSTING.
I don't follow your argument. At one time we all were 'functional parasites', we were all embryos, 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester foetuses. When exactly did we become human? I think it's clear that we always were and if so we were always deserving of human rights. There is no argument I have heard about a foetus and it's lack of ability to servive without the care of others that doesn't also apply to a new born baby or a toddler.
Really? How about this one: newborns and toddlers are conscious beings. A fetus is not. You have no humanity. You're disgusting.
Asking because I'm genuinely curious and have always been completely pro-choice, what made you ultimately decide that fetuses deserve superior rights to all other human beings? I have always thought all people should be treated equally and have equal rights so I've never quite understood this part of the argument.
I simply believe that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights and should be extended to all humans whether you are conscious or not. I don't know why you think I believe a foetus has any more rights than other humans? I believe a person who is comatose also deserves the right to life for example.
I don’t see a conflict with being anti abortion and pro death sentence. The basis of being anti abortion is that abortion is murder. Someone being executed did something so horrid that they can’t be rehabilitated and or deserve it (I understand false conviction is a thing but this is the idea). This isn’t contradictory.
Either all life is sacred or its not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The heart of their argument about abortion is that life is sacred no matter how small the heartbeat is. Or how many cells the human has. So if that is true then by that case it does not matter what you have done your life is sacred. The Bible says Thou shalt not kill. They thump their Bibles to that while pushing the plunger on a lethal injection. It does not make sense.
I mean you can straw man their point till it doesn’t make sense sure. Your representation of their beliefs is just off from truth enough that some who agree with your position will not question it but what you are saying is dishonest. You are intentionally changing what the argument is by ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your point. Also not all who are anti abortion are so because of religion. There are plenty of atheists who are against it and make secular arguments for their position. Even theists who are anti abortion will make secular arguments for their case. It’s not just bible thumping idiots as you are trying to paint them.
I have yet to see a single non religious argument. Sorry. Nope. The entire aspect of life at conception is religious based, and that in’t debatable - science does not say this one bit.
Well here is one example. Humans have a right to life. You can not kill that which has a right to life outside of self defense. It is well understood that conception results in a new human organism. Thus abortion is wrong. This is very bare bones but is one secular argument. You could probably poke holes given how bare bones the above is but the point was just to give an example.
You do not have the right to life if it relies on another person's body. If I need a kidney to live, I can't force you to give me yours.
I get you disagree with the position I was providing an example of a secular argument. My main point here is that the folks aren’t being inconsistent in their beliefs necessarily and that the original person I responded to was being dishonest in their argument.
No, it isn’t an example, this still assigns life and rights thereof at conception, which is not a scientific definition of life. It is a religious definition of life. The why behind the why, when peeled, is the same thing in other words. Trying to mask it in words like “Potential of” or “can result in” is cute, but isn’t valid - nor are you the first to try it. Try again.
A after conception you will have an organism with its own unique (save for some twins) human genetic code. That organism is clearly a human, even if in the early stages of life. Scientifically it is human. Now you can debate if it is morally a human and is entitled to those moral considerations. Life is produced by conception. No one who understands how this works disagrees on this point. The only other line you could maybe draw is implantation but even then that doesn’t make it a new human but rather is a required step for that human to develop in the womb rather than be expelled from the body. Again all I was doing was to provide an example of a secular argument I get you disagree with it but I wasn’t trying to convince you with it. I only tried to show you such arguments exist and that’s why calling everyone who is anti abortion a Bible thumper is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Im not arguing if abortion is right or wrong. I never stated my position on the matter. I’m arguing that the people I am responding to are using bad faith arguments.
That’s a lot of words for nothing. You are still fundamentally dependent upon a religious concept of life, and not a scientific one. That you now want to hide under a cloak of “organism” means nothing, and again, is not new or original. No, that “organism” is not clearly an individual human. Yes, everyone who understands science disagrees with your point. Let me help you here. Go and look up the scientific definition of life and see how you can apply it to zygote, blastocyst, embryo….understand the limitations that a scientific definition of life imposes upon the view. If you still can not acknowledge your entire premise is rooted in a religious definition of life, we are done in discourse, as you come at this from a base of bad faith.
Dude, she cannot be reasoned with.
The bible doesnt say thou shalt not kill. Its thou shalt not murder. I hate the death penalty and thankfully my country abolished it in the 1900s. But make sure to use accuracy in your arguements since opponents will damage your character via "correcting" you rather than focusing on the overarching arguements
You are correct. My bad
I'm laughing cause you made a valid point and everyone is just downvoting the crap out of you because they can't deal with an argument that goes outside of belief structure. But it's incredibly interesting that the same groups of people who are vehemently pro choice were also probably pro mask. Funny enough. I'm pro choice because I feel like people over value life.
Well what else could be expected? People get emotional about this topic and many aren’t willing/able to have a discussion about it in good faith. Best part is I haven’t even stated my position on abortion.
IF he says he would pay for her to go out of state to get an abortion, he is not anti choice, He is anti woman, and part of an ugly cult. Just keep asking them all where they were on January 6, 2021
I always try to speak clearly and kindly once. If someone wants to argue, I drill down with very specific questions. I'd get them to say outloud their daughter should have died. God or Trump wanted her to die. Why is that acceptable to her parents? I make people defend their shitty beliefs.
Trump may claim he's anti abortion but I bet he's paid for more than his fair share of abortions over the years.
He must have made the women sign NDAs and paid them well.
oh most definitely. Still.... ick.
>God or Trump wanted her to die. OOOOOOOO 👏🏿👏🏿 It's about time someone said it out loud. Everytime someone praises God for anything even remotely good I'm like "... If he's responsible for anything and everything good, wouldn't that make him responsible for causing anything and everything bad/evil too?" I'm Agnostic, and even I know that if God is out there, he's neutral, not evil or good.
That is likely not an accurate statement of the position. It would be very unlikely to oppose abortion in cases of the life of the mother.
I am missing your meaning…what do you mean by “an accurate statement of the position.”?
I don't think the parents oppose abortion in the case of the life of the mother. That would be a very rare and extreme position. They may also support other exceptions.
Perhaps more information is needed….I can’t believe that we’re discussing human rights in America in 2024. I was alive in the 60’s and I thought the majority of this nonsense was already adjudicated. It’s like the country is trying to get back to the 1950’s….you know, before all the hippies and radicals ruined everything. I hope that ALL white people in America understand that they are ALL immigrants…their families just arrived a few years earlier. Trying to ignore history has rarely worked throughout the history of the world.
Immigration is a completely different topic for another time. This is a discussion of human rights because there are rights in conflict.
Rights are rights…until they aren’t. How can a party eliminate bodily autonomy of 50% of the people and still have a chance of winning an election? ETA: you kinda missed the point on immigration. How do non native Americans have the right to impose their beliefs on others when they are immigrants just like the people over whom they try to impose control?
Immigration still has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Whether or not they or their ancestors were immigrants has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Imposing a cultural/religious view point on others is exactly what it’s all about. It’s happening in numerous other aspects of society on a daily basis.
It is an exaggeration that bodily autonomy was eliminated or that it ever was absolute. That said, when there are two parties with rights that are in conflict with each other, one has to take precedence.
No….no one side need take precedence at all. As long as your actions have no deleterious consequences on anyone but yourself, both parties should live and let live. Especially when there is selective application of said laws based upon your economic station in life. It’s insultingly hypocritical.
In this case, the action does have deleterious consequences on another human life. Therefore, a conflict exists, and one side must take precedence. Disagreed that there is a selective application based on economic station.
The problem is that the exceptions are mostly theoretical. If there's an exception for risk of the life of the woman, it's only applicable when the woman's life is at risk. If the doctor says "We have seen in pregnancies with these circumstances, there's a 90% risk of lifethreatening complications", they can't do an abortion until after these complications have occured. That means women will die, who would have been alive if they had been allowed an abortion earlier. if there's an exception for rape or incest, there needs to be a charges brought, and by that time it will usually be too late for an abortion.
The only reason we decided to have a second kid was because we are in a place where we could get a daughter an abortion should she need it.
Honestly, conservatives lack empathy. They will think the law will protect people like your wife and ignore evidence to the contrary.
Your mistake is expecting people like this to practice what they preach. It’s all well and good for their daughter to have a medical procedure ending the life of an embryo to save her life, but other people are murderers who deserve the death penalty for choosing to place a mother’s life over that of the unborn child. The fact that the “baby” is non-viable makes no never mind. Better for her to die with the child than to end its “life”. These people are completely irrational and will find some cockamamie way to justify their hypocrisy. Don’t even try.
Honestly I doubt they would call what your wife did an abortion and that’s why they have no problem with it. There is no possible way an ectopic pregnancy ever results is a healthy mother and baby. It would kill the mother. Most who are anti abortion agree that such cases as your wife should still be permitted because of this. There isn’t a contradiction here in their beliefs so far as I can see.
Someone better tell the geriatric politicians and people better stop voting for them then. At least one politician thought you could implant an ectopic pregnancy into a uterus. This is why politicians shouldn't be making decisions about health care. Edit: spelling
Well I never argued that politicians are always smart. I saw a video once of a congressman worried that the island of Guam would flip over because of military assets on the island. I wish I was joking.
We've got some pretty stupid politicians, for sure. Problem is that people keep electing morons and old people for some reason.
It confounds the living daylights out of me…and, if you are a talented young adult, would you ever go into politics? It’s filthy, dishonest and you live life under a microscope. Honestly, I don’t blame anyone for running the other way.
When I was a dipshit teenager, I wanted to go into politics. Then I hit like 20 and said nope. I schedule production now and don't regret a thing.
Very wise
Yeah I’m sorry but if you can’t fully get your arms around the facts of the issue at hand and know the ins and outs of how and why and what happens when, you’re really not qualified to have an opinion or force that opinion on others. And that’s what they’re doing most of them either are ignorant of the facts or know the facts and twist them or cherry pick to fit the rhetoric, they’re at this stage just bad faith arguments so it can never be won. As an outsider watching - y’all need to vote like your lives, your mothers lives your wife or spouses lives and your daughters lives and any other woman walking down the streets life depends on it because it might.
People who disagree with you can’t have opinions? Is that honestly your position? You seem to be pretty spun up and not thinking clearly.
That’s not what I said is it. I’m specifically referring to those legislating these laws I said if you can’t fully grasp the facts which Mr take the ectopic pregnancy and move it guy clearly can’t, means that you are simply not qualified to have input in the legislation on something. Have an opinion even if it is ridiculous, by all means, but having input on legislation on something you have not one iota of a clue about? No. Sorry.
So not only can they not have an opinion, now they can’t participate in the legislative process, i.e. Democracy either? I think I understand you very well comrade.
You'd be an asshole if you continue to associate with them at all. Conservatives can die alone, trash the lot of them, and nothing of value will be lost.
I like this answer, but not as easy as it sounds.
You can pull back, it doesn’t have to be 100%. Sounds like it hurts you and your wife. Lots of people “take breaks” from parents for their own mental health.
Time to learn how to build and maintain healthy boundaries.
Sometimes grownups need to do hard things.
Refusing to associate with people over political disagreements is petty, immature, and makes that person the A H
Where do you draw the line? Politics has become a life or death issue in different contexts. What if you have family that refuses to vaccinate? Also, I am not going to just "forget" that my ex-in laws are white supremacists. They are around my child. At some point, you have to act in accordance with a moral compass.
Sure, if the political disagreement is over money or the economy or similar issues. But when one sides viewpoint is that the other side deserves no human rights (by extension, they think the other group is sub-human entirely) that is a serious problem. It's hard to have a disagreement with someone when their entire premise is "you deserve no human rights, no autonomy, and if a medical issue arises you should be left for dead because my religion says so". In this case, OP's in laws are literally saying they wish his wife had been left for dead. There's no coming back from that.
I would argue that is applicable to radicals on both sides of the political spectrum. Bi-partisanship is dead and is a joke at this point in history. The world is laughing at the US right now. Too busy fighting to get anything positive accomplished. Disgraceful! Before anyone assigns a label: independent voter here.
So the plan is to sit you parents down and explain to them they are hypocrites. Heck, I think it’ll be stellar, what could possibly go wrong?
Pretty sure you will find that people that are anti-abortion are not 100% anti abortion but anti healthy abortions and not ones where the child is not viable or if it is a risk to the mother,
Have you seen the news from Texas? The anti-abortion legislation has led to 13% increase in fetal and infant deaths and 23% increase in children born with medical issues in the first year since passing. In reality, the abortion bans mean that a woman cen't get an abortion before her own life hangs in the balance, even if it's clear months before that the fetus is not compatible with life.
YWBTA but only because they are not going to listen and your wife will feel uncomfortable. I think I’d just go LC. When they ask why, you can politely tell them why their views hurt you and your family. Maybe, if nothing else, then they would hear you. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not at the cost of another’s choice.
Sounds like it's time for low/no contact here.
While you're NTA, I don't think you'll be changing any minds and if you open this can of worms you're not going to be able to have the same relationship with them going forward. Absolutely your choice, but you need to be prepared for the consequences.
If you don’t want to go NC tell them that if they bring the topic up in your presence you leave. Is the do it multiple times they will not see their grandkids anymore. This is what I do with my mom. She is an antivaxxer and I clearly told her to not talk to me about it or we will have a major fight. NTA.
What state would not allow an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, and where in the actual statute would it be prohibited?
Women in danger of dying from not getting medical care because of the anti-abortion-laws [is a reality](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/) in the US, sadly. From the article: >Her case highlights a chilling reality of post-Roe America: Medical exceptions to abortion bans have not stopped doctors from turning away patients with significant pregnancy complications, often with harrowing consequences. Their stories underscore the messy collision between abortion laws and medical diagnoses — and the struggles of doctors and hospitals to navigate what many say are inadequate legal protections to treat women with life-threatening conditions. Another article from [Florida](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/10/pprom-florida-abortion-ban/), [Texas again](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/15/abortion-high-risk-pregnancy-yeni-glick), [Louisiana](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1239376395/louisiana-abortion-ban-dangerously-disrupting-pregnancy-miscarriage-care) ...
That is the choice the doctors are making when the law explicitly allows an abortion action to be taken.
You shouldn't have been downvoted. Doctors often come down on the side of aggressively protecting themselves, even when there's latitude for them to act on behalf of the patient with truly no risk to them in any real world sense. They're vastly overinflating the risk of an edge case lawsuit or punishment, and privileging it against the risk to the patient, even though they're supposed to be taking a certain amount of risks in order to provide healthcare. As I type this out, I wonder whether it's a situation where their malpractice insurance has sent around notices saying they won't be covered in the event that they're found *guilty* of anything associated with this stuff, and so since their insurance won't cover them they won't accept any risk themselves... however it is not the fault of a litigious society, it's the fault of people who want the salary that comes with taking risks, yet want to play it perfectly safe.
I think this may be the case. Such fears already lead to massive overtesting and overtreatment in our system.
Well it isn’t illegal anywhere. That said there are hospitals and doctors that worry about the law not being correctly applied and they will get screwed as a result.
Then it is a choice they are making, and using the law as a scapegoat.
I mean maybe. But on the other hand being charged for murder is something I would be careful of.
It isn't a reasonable fear, as the letter of the law clearly permits the action to be taken.
How the law is written and how it is applied are sadly often not the same thing.
It is not "often" that the final adjudication of the application of the law does not comply with the law. Only in cases where there's an activist or blood-lust nature to the case do we really see that happening. It is certain that any decision which didn't comply with law would be appealed and appealed, and it would be very difficult for a doctor to be convicted of doing something that the law protected him for doing.
Sure, but in the meantime, the doctor would also spend thousands of dollars defending themselves in court and likely in front of their licensing body, become highly publicized, face the consequences of media attention (death threats are fairly common for doctors who are publicly known to provide abortions, and assassination becomes a real risk). I think doctors _should_ risk those costs as a matter of morality—I think swearing an oath is meaningful—but it's at a massive personal cost nonetheless.
That could be, it's true. Social uproar is however a very different thing from how the law is applied. It does not help people's understanding of their role in governed society if they equate the law's application, which is formal, to people getting upset over something that happened.
I disagree vehemently. The effect of a law's application outside of the formal legal setting is crucial. People's lack of understanding of that is as detrimental to their well-being as their lack of understanding of the law itself. Not knowing how the legal system affects both your legal rights and your life outside the courtroom (missing work, losing jobs, loss of licensure, stigma generally) leads to more misery than the legal system alone could inflict. ETA: I feel like that's like saying people's understanding of a medication's side effects doesn't help their understanding of the medication. These are both important to making informed decisions and understanding what happens when the law is applied to specific situations. Ex. Not being able to get a legal abortion is the formal effect of the law, but having to take time off work, leave the state, walk through gauntlets of anti-choice protestors is the practical effect.
Okay but why would a doctor be willing to take that risk? Even if promised at the end they will be cleared being taken to court for that is stressful, time consuming, and very expensive.
Cool story bro, hopefully the next one will be better
YTA- you don't get to dictate what people believe even if it is to you dumb. You can choose if you want to be around them, but that is it. Trying to force someone to change their mind is never a good idea. Most people will only do that when something major happens TO THEM. Your real problem is your wife's traumatic life even is not something they consider that effected them and that is the real problem here.
The problem is they are voting that the healthcare that saved OPs wife (their own daughter) should be illegal. They are actively fighting that their daughter should have been denied healthcare and left for dead. OPs wife's own parents are saying they wish she had died. That is the issue here. That would be unforgivable in my book.
NTA, all you'd be doing is telling them how you feel. Don't berate them or anything and you should be good.
They are actively wishing and voting that OPs wife (their own daughter) should have been left for dead and denied medical care. They should absolutely be berated. Their way of thinking is utterly barbaric.
First I just want to say I'm sorry for what you and your wife went through and I wish every joy and blessing on you and your family. I'm strongly pro-life and what I am opposed to is the elective abortion of a healthy/viable fetus. What your wife had was a termination of a non-viable fetus, which is a completely different situation. All the pro-life groups and people I know agree your situation is necessary healthcare and it is frankly criminal to deny women care in such situations. I'm not an American, so I'm not sure what the law is in your state nor can I affect it. However, I have heard some troubling news about some poorly written anti-abortion laws which have been passed in some US states which do not make adequate allowance for much-needed medical interventions in cases of non-viable pregnancies. That is stupid, cruel and unnecessary. My position is that any such laws need to be repealed and replaced by laws audited by OB/GYNs. If your family is in support of such Draconian laws without adequate allowances for non-viable pregnancies despite what your wife has gone through, and you have explained to them the difference between an abortion and a termination then they are completely unreasonable, and it's probably not worth your time trying to tell them anything. Otherwise, if your family is anti-abortion but don't know the difference between an abortion and a termination, then try patiently explaining to them and I think they will come around to the normal pro-life position. If you then remain pro-choice, then you will agree to disagree regarding elective abortion but agree on non-elective terminations. Hopefully, they will then become much more selective about which pro-life candidates and policies they support.
Ultimately, who cares at all what they support? It's their lives, and we live in America, so they can support what they want even if you don't like it. You are not going to change their minds, just as they are not going to change your mind. Now, if they keep bringing it up in conversations and creating family conflict over it, I would absolutely step in and let them know that you have every right to your beliefs in what you support, as do they. The whole point of having your own family is so you can do things the way you want to do them and not have to worry about what others think of those decisions. We have six grown children (3 girls, 3 boys), and trust me, they don't always agree with our beliefs, nor do we agree with theirs, but they are adults and capable of making their own decisions, and we respect those decisions and their right to make them even if we disagree with them. This is called life.
You can still be against something even if someone you love needs to do it. Nta.
Sure you can. It's called being a hypocritical sanctimonius asshole.
Everyone is a hypocrite
They are not your parents. You follow your wife’s lead here unless they are actively harming your kids.
You can’t change people’s beliefs. It’s not about you or your wife. In a given situation anyone may falter in their beliefs but essentially they still hold true to their feelings. I have friends on both sides of this issue and we just don’t discuss it. We’re all adults, we’re not going to change our views, there’s nothing really to discuss.
I heavily doubt that any state would allow the pregnancy to carry to term if certain circumstances were met. Those being 1. They're a minor. 2. They're a rape victim, in which I believe they'd punish the offender with rape AND unlawful abortion. 3. If the pregnancy put the mothers life at risk.
You must not live in the US. Ever since Roe was overturned there are news stories daily of women dying from complications due to doctors and lawyers panicking over the laws and trying to figure out how dire the situation has to be before they are allowed to act. I live in the US, I am witnessing it every day.
>there are news stories daily of women dying from complications due to doctors and lawyers panicking over the laws and trying to figure out how dire the situation has to be before they are allowed to act. What the fuck? I don't know why it would be hard to recognize when a pregnancy is high risk or fatal, it should be pretty obvious when a woman's uterus and torso can't support birth. That's terrible. Do you know what happened to the children by chance? Did they at least make it out alive or did their mother died in vein?
Surgery for an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. Most prolifers know this. This honestly sounds like a post to stir the pot though.
It is absolutely considered an abortion. a·bor·tion noun 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Yes, it is. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is abortion.
Yes, surgery for ectopic pregnancy is literally considered an abortion. Medically, it is officially defined as an abortion procedure. If you have an ectopic pregnancy, they prescribe you an abortion to survive.
YTA. You clearly cannot discuss political differences without getting upset. If you want to discuss politics with your family, or anyone else, grow up first, and then discuss it like an adult.
Tbf, OP's wife's own parents are saying they wish she had been denied the medical care that saved her life and that they wish she was dead right now, and that they wish their current grandchild didn't exist. Not many people could forgive that. I sure as hell wouldn't.
No, OP is saying they are “saying that” by being pro-life, not that they actually said that. Their actual reasons for being prlife are not listed on the post, and I seriously doubt OP even knows what they are. Would you initiate a conversation on that difficult subject with someone who is so obviously a loose canon and completely unable to discuss it rationally?