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.
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.
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.
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."
> 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
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.
Do you have another source which is saying that? This article says:
> Paramedics arrived at Latice Fisher’s Mississippi home to find a baby in the toilet, lifeless and blue, the umbilical cord still attached. The child — roughly six pounds and more than 35 weeks along — was rushed to the hospital, where it was pronounced dead.
> Fisher, a mother of three, told paramedics she had not known she was pregnant. But she later admitted to a nurse that she had known about the pregnancy. And after she voluntarily surrendered her iPhone to police, investigators discovered that Fisher, a former police dispatcher, had searched for how to “buy Misopristol Abortion Pill Online” 10 days earlier.
It may have been a case of the woman earnestly not knowing she was pregnant for months (don't laugh, this happens with very obese women) and thinking she had just recently gotten pregnant. But it doesn't say anything about a nuchal chord.
This is a major fear of "pro life" legislation: women are reduced to birthing vessels and failure to reproduce warrants intense legal scrutiny. I have friends that could, in today's legal environment, be facing life in prison because they've had three or more miscarriages.
[?] I may have misread something, and cannot find a source on this on second reading. Leaving it in place for the sake of transparency.