635
Non twitter version https://www.threads.net/@kamalahq/post/DBEREtSIyi9
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
635 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
5401 readers
1476 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pregnant Women Are The 'Forgotten Victims' Of War
"Nobody wants to drive through the streets because it is too dangerous," says Dr. Andrew Weeks, an obstetrician and expert on maternal deaths who published a chilling editorial about the risks of war for pregnant women in the journal The BMJ. "There are no taxis. There's no money. So you start walking or being carried to the nearest health facility, which is in ruins. Of course you're going to die. You haven't got a chance."
And it's not just a lack of medical care, he says. Direct attacks on pregnant women are another concern. In his editorial, Weeks described women being shot while giving birth in Nigeria and a fetus being shot through a pregnant woman's belly by a sniper in Syria.
Without any official tracking of the number of pregnant women who die from reasons related to war, these women often become "forgotten victims," says Weeks.
"Every avenue you look at for women during war times, their health is compromised," says Weeks, a professor at the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom. "The voices of women in war situations are often neglected. These are the lost voices we're trying to highlight."
Obviously that's terrible but what exactly does it have to do with planned parenthood funding in the US?
Whataboutism. Just talk about something else terrible that's happening to draw your attention away.
The US has a rule against federal money being paid towards medical service providers who perform abortions, because it is unethical.
The US does not have a rule against dropping a fuel bomb on a small town in Afghanistan, killing thousands of people (including pregnant women and their attendant fetuses). Or laying siege to the island of Cuba for 80 years and ratcheting up the miscarriage and infant mortality rates with sanctions. Or ratcheting up the cost of life-saving medications via the for-profit domestic pharmaceutical system, in order to generate profit at the expense of infant and unborn lives. Or sending aid to the IDF to assassinate pregnant women with bullet wounds through their stomachs.
In effect, the US is fine with federal taxpayer money going towards all of these different and horrible ways to end the life of an unborn child. Just so long as it isn't done medically, and with the consent of the woman. Because we don't consider this unethical.
Okay, but saying we are doing one dumb thing but justifying it by saying 'well we already are doing these other dumb/horrible things guess the whole system is broken' is simply giving up on the whole concept of organized government.
There is no government anywhere in the world, now or any time in history, that has done everything perfectly. But individual improvements to human rights and protections get us closer than just throwing ones hands up when it isn't perfect out of the gate.
We still fight stupid ideas like basically everything JD Vance has ever said because those ideas move us in the wrong direction. Defeating his idiocy doesn't make everything else perfect but it sure as hell keeps it from getting worse, and hopefully makes it easier to make more positive changes in the future.
I'm not justifying it. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of our "Right to Life" policies.
The same folks bleeting about the rights of a fetish will defend a cop who puts six rounds through it's mother's stomach
Must be nice living in a world made purely of moral absolutes.