[dhzhzjsbevs]

> Stillbirth

That's not in the article.

> but I see no evidence mentioned that she followed through on the purchase

This article is about abortion rights. I think it's fair game to call a 35 week abortion what it is.

> women are reduced to birthing vessels

There isn't some conspiracy to turn women into birthing vessels. The only thing under debate is at what age a baby becomes a legal person afforded rights to life and at what age a women loses her right to end that life.

[random-human]

In many states the more accurate debate is at what point does the possibility of a not-yet guaranteed air-breathing human have more rights than the already living human it's still developing in. Or put another way, at what point do we decide that the woman's life belongs to the state?

These new laws make it clear that a pregnant female, who is already a participating member of humanity, has only one purpose. To carry out the pregnancy, even if it is high risk and likely to kill or disable her. If she fails to produce a new living member, she may now go to jail in some states because the quiet-bad-faith part is made into law; that her Life, is not nearly as important to them as possibility of the not-yet guaranteed new young human. There is nothing pro-life about that.

[Hallucinaut]

Don't forget that once they're born that it's also communism to help them thrive.

[dhzhzjsbevs]

> belongs to the state?

Oh please. Cool it with the strawman arguments. It's boring.

They aren't owned by the state. They simply can't kill the human growing inside them. That's it, that's all it is.

We don't need to drop to analogies and hyperbole, we have the language to describe what is happening. A woman, in most instances, chooses to have a baby grow inside of them. But regardless of how it got there, at a certain point that baby deserves human rights.

That point is all that's up for debate. At what point does a baby become a human with rights to life.

One side argues birth, one side argues conception. The vast majority decided viability 22 weeks (disturbing imo but neither here nor there).

My human right to free speech stops at the point it harms someone else.

I don't see why these rights would be any bloody different.

If you want to debate this issue you need to be willing to define when a baby becomes a human, because THAT is the only thing being debated here.

[dang]

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

In particular, please edit out flamewar swipes like your first sentence here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

[klyrs]

I read several articles about the case. Google the accused's name.

> I think it's fair game to call a 35 week abortion what it is.

I think it's fair to presume innocence until guilt is proven.

Edit: I think I misread one of the articles, apologies

[dhzhzjsbevs]

Yea that's probably fair. I dont really think we should be looking to criminalise pregnancy losses.

At the same time I think it was a bit of a suspect situation. It's pretty rare to end up with a full term baby dead in the toilet.

[robonerd]

Can you link to one? I can find articles calling it a still birth, which is obviously the contention of those who think she's innocent, but I can't find any articles talking about the cord being wrapped. Also, the initial medical examination of the body said it died of asphyxiation, determined by a "float test" which evidently showed air in the lungs. It seems this conclusion may likely have been erroneous and the float test not scientifically sound, but it seems a bit unlikely they would initially conclude such a thing if the cord were obviously wrapped around the neck.