Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Bette Midler Gets Dragged as Transphobic (And I Love It)" video.

@missygoldstein12 Even before Roe every state allowed it for life of the mother. Health of the mother is not well defined legally and it's how states have gotten away with up to birth. Stress from finances can fall under "health". Then there's the problem that in most real cases where the mother's health is effected, that's not seen until later in pregnancy and the cure is giving birth. That begs the question of why kill the baby? Why can't the baby be delivered and allowed to live? Killing it serves no purpose. So again it comes down to simple convenience for the mother. For everything else you mentioned, it's up to voters to decide. It was never a right. Even the Roe decision didn't claim that it was because it recognized there's a point that it conflicts with the state's interest. That wording makes it a privilege by definition because a right can't be limited by the state's interest.
3
I'm loving everyone holding up this story of the 10 year old as if it's 100% factual. People are ignoring it's from the same papers that have lied repeatedly to push their own ideological beliefs. It's that effect where if you know about a story you know what's written is false, but you forget it when you turn the page. There's zero proof been offered to substantiate it. No records or anything, but since it plays into people's arguments, it's obviously true. It's very convenient that she got it anyway so there's not going to be a record of a 10 year old giving birth. Let's just ignore that the incest wouldn't have even mattered because at that age it would have fallen under a risk to the life of the mother by any medical standard, meaning every state allows that so she could have gotten one under every current law. That doesn't play as well into the fear and doesn't make a good talking point.
3
@mrdeleted I just addressed that in a comment. Where's the proof? Plus 10 year old being pregnant would fall under risk to the life of the mother by all medical standards. It's extremely dangerous. Every state allows that. The story makes zero sense other than as propaganda. Only a handful of pregnancies have occurred throughout history at that age that resulted in a live birth and the mother living. Edit: Whoever came up with this story doesn't know much about medicine or pregnancy to put her at such an extremely young age. Anything below about 13 would fall under life of mother and even a lot of those would depending on the size and health of the mother.
2
If they had them removed, that means they were born with them so still would be considered a woman by that case.
1
@Nunya_Bidness_53 They go so far as to attack women that dare make the choice of living a more traditional role or that like and praise being feminine. They don't really want women to have a choice. They are what they project onto that time period. They also only know feminist propaganda because women did have choices then too. Just like now, the extremes were used to paint everything instead of what life was really like.
1