childfree

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

This was a living infant that in all likelihood the mother wanted to live. Celebrating its survival seems hardy "anti-choice", even as the mother met a tragic end.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

These mouth breathers call themselves "Pro-life" and all they care about is getting babies born. They couldn't give a crap if the kid is living well after that. And they certainly don't give a flying fuck about the mother. Otherwise they wouldn't elect assholes who promise to cut low income benefits and free school lunch programs. They believe that being against abortion will get them into heaven and that's is all they really care about. That and growing their insane death cult membership rolls.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

But what do those people you call out have to do with this story? There's no details one way or the other for the most part.

There's no evidence that she was forced to have the child against her will.

There's no evidence that it was apparent that she was in particular need of support, no evidence she was kicked out prematurely from the hospital, and no statement about whether the cause of death even relates to having given birth.

There's no evidence that the life of the infant was in any way prioritized over the life of the mother, the mother was already dead.

Maybe one of these will turn out to be the case, but at the moment it's a bit presumptious to state this relates.

parent

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

Also, a close call with death is generally more novel than dying.