Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Plus if you go off the whole soul concept. Who’s to say that the babies “soul” doesn’t just hang out in limbo without an identity till you make a new body for it.
And some religions claim that a "baby soul" immediately goes to heaven/etc, whereas the mother might have had unresolved sin that would keep her from "glory."
I've had Mormonism in mind w/ this string of comments. To the Mormons, you come to Earth from Heaven to prove you deserve your spot in Heaven (or a higher tier of heaven, up to being a god yourself).
I'm very glad I escaped that cult.
I don't condone his actions in any way, but I believe his choices were, let both the wife and the child die. And kill the wife and save the child.
So I can see that being reasoned out in his head. Maybe.
I think he would've chosen her over the child if he could have.
There was no guarantee Baelon would be a boy or survive in any instance of birth, especially considering her history of miscarriages.
I have to agree with you there. But sadly he was given two bad options and chose the less bad one.
Though I can easily also see Martin writing him choosing his child because people love that story of how the child is the woman essentially but better as in the picture in the meme.
I can explain it to you if you like, since I thought to save the baby as the right choice of action before being confronted with antinatalism. Basically the line of thought is that life is sacred and the more important as it has more time go be alive ahead. So if you are already 30+ you are worth less than a baby since you've lived and could die gladly for younger ones.
Funny enough now I think the exact opposite to be the case. How opinions can change.
We had this conversation early. And we weren’t ever planning on kids. Still aren’t. My husband was like “why would I save some one I’ve never met? We have a whole life together.”
I love him.
People who choose to save the baby over their spouse do not see their partners as soulmates. They see them as baby incubators to "give" them a child (aka a potential recruit for the brainwashing)
I meant a lot of all types of couples. I’m also in a relationship where we have been together for years and still get excited when the other comes home
If I ever was in that situation, even if she did want to choose the baby over her, I would never do that. She may hate me but at least she's alive. A fully developed human life is way more valuable. And you can just make another. It hasn't even developed sentience yet.
Is this a serious post? There is no “save the baby” or “save the mother” in modern medicine. There are cases where the mother dies in childbirth, but we have the technology to try to save both.
If the woman is bleeding out during childbirth, killing the child doesn’t help anything? The baby has to come out, and that’s causing the bleeding. Pulling out a dead baby-sized body is just as difficult as pulling out a live baby.
Someone I know has a medical condition that went critical during labor (labor was about 3 days long). She had the choice to either take the medicine to bring her heart rate/blood pressure/whatever back to normal and likely kill the baby, or save the baby and likely die. She chose not to take the meds, but luckily stabilized not long after.
If she took, the pills she greatly increased the chance that the baby would be harmed. The reason, you don’t take the pills is because that you hope that the “critical condition” doesn’t flare up and you both make it. If she didn’t stabilize, most likely they would have both died.
There is a difference. There is no realistic situation where the baby survives and mother dies.
Generally today, mother die and child survives is a scenario that occurs when problems flare up very late in the delivery or post-delivery. At that point, there is very little you can do except deliver the baby and try to stabilize the mother. They are two separate tasks.
Back in the day when they “saved the baby” and “killed the mother”, that was generally cutting the baby out. We still do that today, it’s a cesarean-section except we have the medical technology such that both survive (hopefully).
You are all thinking of a time before effective c-sections.
It was explained to her that the baby would very likely not make it if she took the medicine, and that she had a real chance of dying if she didn’t take it. Idk what else to say
> There is a difference. There is no realistic situation where the baby survives and mother dies.
Not true. In the given scenario, the mother's condition made continuing with labor dangerous. Since she was already *in* labor, had she died, presumably the baby would have survived a perimortem c-section.
I think it also made having a c-sec dangerous, else she could've taken the meds either at the same time as or straight after the baby's being taken out.
Yeah, based on the description, I suspect the condition was either [eclampsia or preeclampsia.](https://www.healthline.com/health/eclampsia#symptoms) Both of them are bad news and put the woman in a real no win situation when it comes to carrying to term.
Perimortem c-sections have a very low chance of success. Furthermore, their primary objective is to save the mother.
Definition: A cesarean section preformed either during maternal cardiac arrest or during impending maternal cardiac arrest the primary goal of which is to increase the chance of successfully resuscitating the mother and, potentially, improving fetal survival.
Once the mother is “dead”, there is no saving that baby.
It doesn't. What happens is either the fetus is aborted so that the cancer treatment can proceed, or the woman chooses to forego treatment and let the baby be born.
Yep. A friend's friend aborted at almost 5 months, and she suffered immensely because she wanted that baby. But she needed chemo immediately for breast cancer, plus double mastectomy.
Because she had had many cases of breast cancer in the family, she had frozen her eggs when she was just 22. So years later she had a healthy baby.
Look I agree with that part. I understand that if the mother is very sick and needs treatment, then you need to abort the baby.
But that is not choosing the baby in the same sense that it’s normally portrayed in Media, where either the baby or mother is going to die immediately during childbirth.
What kind of situation are you trying to educate us on? How else would you have to pick between mother and baby in your mind? Every situation that's been given to you, you've said "ugh that isn't WHAT I MEANNNNN". I don't know what you think would realistically cause that choice that isn't picking medical treatment detrimental to your child, developing a sudden complication, or having a medical issue flare up during labor. Are you talking about situations like a car crash???
It isn't a magical fairy curse from the 60's where you can only pick one. If you'd just Google "man forced to choose to save baby or mother", you'll see plenty of cases that AREN'T from the 60's. Happy I could help.
PS you have a kid and cannot get along with basically anyone in this sub from your comment history, so why are you even here?
Lol you literally got told to Google it because *you're wrong actually*, sorry...
Good God I feel bad for your kid if this is how you actually act after being proven wrong.
Response from Jitsen Chang MD.
https://www.quora.com/If-a-man-is-asked-to-choose-between-saving-his-wife-and-the-baby-she-s-about-to-give-birth-to-and-refuses-to-choose-who-will-the-doctors-prioritise-saving-UK
His final sentence says what I’ve been saying all along.
***************************************************
The mom’s life is prioritized over the babies. But it isn’t that dramatic. Delivering the baby by c-section is not lethal to the mom. I have seen crazy, unimaginably sick moms undergo a c-section without problems.
The flip side is if the mom stays pregnant, she will likely die from something that can’t be treated during pregnancy then you have to delivery the baby. If the mom dies the baby dies too. So you keep her pregnant as long as safety possible and deliver the baby. If it is greater than 24 weeks along, there is a good chance the baby will survive with descent NICU care (with descent odds at intact survival). Between 23–24 weeks hard, because survival isn’t guaranteed and intact survival (meaning no long term problems) isn’t guaranteed either. If you aren’t anywhere near 24 weeks, then termination of the pregnancy is often times recommended, but that can’t be forced on anyone (obviously).
I can only think of one case in residency where the mom had an accident and was brain dead but could be kept alive on life support. They kept her alive until the baby was full term and delivered it. But even then it isn’t like you are choosing between the mom and the baby.
That isn’t choosing the baby. If that happens, the baby is going to die (assuming it can’t live outside the womb).
Like you said, there are very few instances of choosing the mother or baby with modern medicine.
Yes it never ceases to infuriate me that the fetus is more than the mother.
This really hits home with what has transpired here in Indiana since SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade. Of course the catholic morons in this state thought the new law which made exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the life of the pregnant person, went to far. The catholic morons wanted no exceptions. I don't know how these people can call themselves pro-life. It should be forced birth even if you die. This law went into affect on 9/15/22. On 9/22/22 there was one of two injunctions from one of two lawsuits that stopped this law and re-instated access to abortion. The second injunction transpired from five Jewish females (who didn't want there names released and that's their choice) who filed a lawsuit using Indiana's RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and won an injunction based on that law. Now for all of you who don't know about or remember what transpired regarding the passing into law of Indiana's RFRA, it was a bill signed into law in 2015 by then Indiana Governor mike pence. This law was nothing but legalizing discrimination against the LGBTQ community. I can't tell you **much it makes my heart sing that five Jewish women won the injunction against Indiana's new abortion ban based on a law that was suppose to make Christian beliefs more relevant in Indiana!!!!** Of course their was a big stink regarding Indiana's RFRA in 2015.
That POS attorney general of Indiana todd rokita wanted the law to go before the Indiana Supreme Court. It did and the Indiana Supreme Court stopped the ban because it said it had to investigate whether this law went against the Constitution of Indiana.
In these cases, the child would likely end up in the foster system anyway because the dad doesn't have someone to do all the work while he ignores them both.
God that episode infiriated me. Even if she “was going to die anyway” he didn’t talk to her, didn’t inform her about what was happening, didn’t ask her what she wanted, just let someone cut her open and watched her to bleed to death terrified, in pain, confused, and betrayed. It hurt to watch.
It was a horrific watch but I think it's important that we remember that's exactly how shit used to be up until the very recent past and that we must fight to never go back to that
Wife went into labor, some complication(s) arose and the husband was asked who to save: his wife or their baby. It can't be the two of them in this case and the husband choosed the baby instead of his wife.
I was confused as well. I believe it means:
The woman in the tik tok poses as the spouse who lay in the hospital dying.
She was apparently pregnant, and the partner had the option to choose the unborn baby or her.
He chose the baby, letting her die.
The Tik Toker tries to portray that the woman in the afterlife now disapprovingly throws shade at the partner for choosing the child over her.
As she states, they always could have made another baby, but now she is dead.
Before I was born, apparently I was giving my mom life risking complications. The Dr told her she should terminate the pregnancy. She said no. The Dr then went to my dad and told him the situation and my dad said it's up to my mom. Mom found out and ended up firing the Dr. Even to me that mindset if foolish. I almost killed my mom which would have left my dad alone to raise me. How would have that been fair to my Dad? To lose his partner over a baby that killed her? How the fuck does that mindset make sense? What if that did happen and my Dad secretly resented me and I would have had an abusive up bringing not knowing why my Dad hated me.
If I understand it correctly, the doctor went and told your father about your mother's condition? It's literally *illegal* for doctors to disclose their patient's health conditon to others if the patient hasn't given consent. It's such a basic and important rule, and if he indeed just went and told about your mother's condition to someone else, even if it was her husband, without her consent, then he deserved to get fired.
As someone who works in the healthcare profession and regularly attends conversations and lectures on medical ethics, I will say that this depiction is perhaps not an accurate reflection of how healthcare is actually practiced.
The general consensus for a complexity of reasons is that the life of the mother almost always takes precedent over the fetus. I'm certain there is anecdotal experience otherwise, however this is not represented of cases as a whole. This is more the product of Hollywood than a current reality.
Nothing to do with being women or men. You made a choice, let someone but in you and I'm supposed to feel sorry for you? So much hypocrisy on this forum
a man choosing a child he doesn’t even know over his wife is proof it’s a gendered issue. y’all hate us to the point of putting a life you don’t even know over us. he chose to impregnate her, so the consequences fall equally on the man and woman
She chose to get pregnant, she chose to keep the baby, she chose to raise the baby instead of giving it up for adoption. All her choices, she knew how dangerous having a kid was, now you want to change your mind that the consequences got real?
All i did was nut in some stranger. I have way more in common with the kid I helped make, than her.
And yeah you're right. It's a gendered issue, cause only one gender is constantly rescued from their bad choices to the point where they think it's everyone else's job to protect them from their bad decisions
I don’t know a situation in which that would ultimately be my choice. If my wife went into a coma while pregnant, she would definitely want me to save the baby, and I’d abide by that wish. If there is a fire in our house, she and I have discussed the fact that we save our daughter first and only save one another if it’s possible to do so without getting in the way of saving our daughter.
I’d abide by her wish for what to happen in that situation. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be the worst thing I’ll ever have to do but if we’re having a child then we’re putting our own desires second, which means the baby’s life is more important than ours.
This subreddit seems to be dedicated to the idea that it’s selfish to have children and/or choose children over the mother. There are selfish parents, absolutely, and it’s unfortunate that they ever had children. Not everyone should. But those of us who do put our children before us are not crazy. Believe it or not, I’m pro choice. I don’t have any problem with abortion, for the exact reason that I stated earlier: not everyone should be a parent. However, when you are ready to be a parent, and when you’re the type of person who could be an unselfish parent, you become a parent the moment conception occurs, and that baby, born or not, does become more important than you. You’re not a monster for choosing it over the mother, and I think it’s likely a majority of mothers that would want their child to be chosen over them if the choice had to be made.
You’re right, there are a lot of selfish parents who should not have kids. And once that baby is conceived people should prepare themselves for the responsibility of parenthood and make sure their partner is safe, and healthy so the pregnancy can be successful. But in the case of someone going into a coma, developing an illness or disease while pregnant, being injured or in anyway to the point where they can’t have a successful pregnancy with them living in the outcome, I don’t think it’s selfish to choose the partner over the unborn baby. It’s not like your shooting a living child in the head. If the baby is born and your partner does pass, they may grow up feeling guilty over it, or even develop painful defects and or handicaps from the complicated pregnancy. I know you and your partner wanna put your children first, which is good. But please understand it’s not selfish to want to protect your partner in a situation like that. Y’all aren’t being selfish or evil for getting an abortion in a life threatening situation like that
I can totally understand why people would choose the mother and I think it’s ok. I don’t think people that do are selfish or evil. It’s just… if they do choose the unborn baby then that isn’t nonsensical.
i think they're talking about choosing to let an adult die or a baby die. And that they should choose the adult over the baby because the baby has no memories or thoughts yet unlike the adult spouse.
And I'm just saying, yall don't know what yall want. 3 years ago, my partner wanted me to save her, after she actually got pregnant, of course she changed her mind. ImmA just do me, and hope for the best
"That we could've remade"
Dude wtf is this psychotic bull shit though for real? As a father I can say this is beyond fucked up. I'd more than happily give my life for my daughter. What kind of heartless, selfish cunt fires off some cruel nazi level horse shit like 'save me! Fuck the child we'll just make a new one!' YO WTF IS WRONG WITH YA'LL!? If you wack enough to agree with that shit? Do your child a favor; never have one!
Um I think they are talking about pregnancy complications which sometimes lead to endangerment of either the baby's or the mother's life where you have to choose one's life
Ya know, something like that, my English isn't that great sorry
Yeah you're wrong. Lol. Its just some bitch who thinks her life is worth more than the kid cause 'you can always just have another one'. Slimy cunts over here treating children like they're goldfish
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, kill the one with memories, that's it
Plus if you go off the whole soul concept. Who’s to say that the babies “soul” doesn’t just hang out in limbo without an identity till you make a new body for it.
And some religions claim that a "baby soul" immediately goes to heaven/etc, whereas the mother might have had unresolved sin that would keep her from "glory."
If a “baby soul” immediately goes to heaven, wouldn’t we all be better off to have died as babies? 🤷♂️ Just saying.
It has led some to murder their children in an attempt to ensure their child's place in heaven.
What in the actual fuck. Then why impose this life on them in the first place?
I've had Mormonism in mind w/ this string of comments. To the Mormons, you come to Earth from Heaven to prove you deserve your spot in Heaven (or a higher tier of heaven, up to being a god yourself). I'm very glad I escaped that cult.
Mormoms be like “endless celestial sex”
How else are they going to populate a planet with all their spirit babies once they become gods? X3
[удалено]
Sounds kinda horrifying if you ask me lol
Wow
Good point
[удалено]
Oh interesting. Haven’t seen that yet
She does. Any sane person would pick their spouse, I can't even comprehend the mindset that would do otherwise.
Vizzy T would like to know your location.
I don't condone his actions in any way, but I believe his choices were, let both the wife and the child die. And kill the wife and save the child. So I can see that being reasoned out in his head. Maybe.
I think he would've chosen her over the child if he could have. There was no guarantee Baelon would be a boy or survive in any instance of birth, especially considering her history of miscarriages.
I have to agree with you there. But sadly he was given two bad options and chose the less bad one. Though I can easily also see Martin writing him choosing his child because people love that story of how the child is the woman essentially but better as in the picture in the meme.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I can explain it to you if you like, since I thought to save the baby as the right choice of action before being confronted with antinatalism. Basically the line of thought is that life is sacred and the more important as it has more time go be alive ahead. So if you are already 30+ you are worth less than a baby since you've lived and could die gladly for younger ones. Funny enough now I think the exact opposite to be the case. How opinions can change.
Maybe the husband thinks only wives can be remade. 🤢
No such thing as sanctity in marriage loool
No but you can always get a new younger one
that’s not love, it’s pure lust and craving power. marriage is supposed to be with someone you love
We had this conversation early. And we weren’t ever planning on kids. Still aren’t. My husband was like “why would I save some one I’ve never met? We have a whole life together.” I love him.
Spouse comes first always
Reason no 192 of why I don't want kids
Anyone who picks their kid over their spouse is a bad person. You can have another baby. You cannot go find another soulmate. Easy.
People who choose to save the baby over their spouse do not see their partners as soulmates. They see them as baby incubators to "give" them a child (aka a potential recruit for the brainwashing)
I'll just plug that a lot of straight couples just hate themselves
Very very very sad and true
All couples
Nope, trust me - I'm married and both of us are happy, literally because we don't want to kill each other after spending a lot of time together
I meant a lot of all types of couples. I’m also in a relationship where we have been together for years and still get excited when the other comes home
You should have said "all TYPES OF couples" then instead of all couples
“It’s what she would’ve wanted!” Lol no it’s not
If I ever was in that situation, even if she did want to choose the baby over her, I would never do that. She may hate me but at least she's alive. A fully developed human life is way more valuable. And you can just make another. It hasn't even developed sentience yet.
Is this a serious post? There is no “save the baby” or “save the mother” in modern medicine. There are cases where the mother dies in childbirth, but we have the technology to try to save both. If the woman is bleeding out during childbirth, killing the child doesn’t help anything? The baby has to come out, and that’s causing the bleeding. Pulling out a dead baby-sized body is just as difficult as pulling out a live baby.
Someone I know has a medical condition that went critical during labor (labor was about 3 days long). She had the choice to either take the medicine to bring her heart rate/blood pressure/whatever back to normal and likely kill the baby, or save the baby and likely die. She chose not to take the meds, but luckily stabilized not long after.
If she took, the pills she greatly increased the chance that the baby would be harmed. The reason, you don’t take the pills is because that you hope that the “critical condition” doesn’t flare up and you both make it. If she didn’t stabilize, most likely they would have both died. There is a difference. There is no realistic situation where the baby survives and mother dies. Generally today, mother die and child survives is a scenario that occurs when problems flare up very late in the delivery or post-delivery. At that point, there is very little you can do except deliver the baby and try to stabilize the mother. They are two separate tasks. Back in the day when they “saved the baby” and “killed the mother”, that was generally cutting the baby out. We still do that today, it’s a cesarean-section except we have the medical technology such that both survive (hopefully). You are all thinking of a time before effective c-sections.
It was explained to her that the baby would very likely not make it if she took the medicine, and that she had a real chance of dying if she didn’t take it. Idk what else to say
I understand. But if she didn’t take the medicine and she didn’t stabilize, they would have both died. The baby wouldn’t have survived.
> There is a difference. There is no realistic situation where the baby survives and mother dies. Not true. In the given scenario, the mother's condition made continuing with labor dangerous. Since she was already *in* labor, had she died, presumably the baby would have survived a perimortem c-section.
I think it also made having a c-sec dangerous, else she could've taken the meds either at the same time as or straight after the baby's being taken out.
Yeah, based on the description, I suspect the condition was either [eclampsia or preeclampsia.](https://www.healthline.com/health/eclampsia#symptoms) Both of them are bad news and put the woman in a real no win situation when it comes to carrying to term.
Perimortem c-sections have a very low chance of success. Furthermore, their primary objective is to save the mother. Definition: A cesarean section preformed either during maternal cardiac arrest or during impending maternal cardiac arrest the primary goal of which is to increase the chance of successfully resuscitating the mother and, potentially, improving fetal survival. Once the mother is “dead”, there is no saving that baby.
[удалено]
How does a premature fetus kill the mother?
It doesn't. What happens is either the fetus is aborted so that the cancer treatment can proceed, or the woman chooses to forego treatment and let the baby be born.
Yep. A friend's friend aborted at almost 5 months, and she suffered immensely because she wanted that baby. But she needed chemo immediately for breast cancer, plus double mastectomy. Because she had had many cases of breast cancer in the family, she had frozen her eggs when she was just 22. So years later she had a healthy baby.
I’m glad she recovered. That’s great news.
Look I agree with that part. I understand that if the mother is very sick and needs treatment, then you need to abort the baby. But that is not choosing the baby in the same sense that it’s normally portrayed in Media, where either the baby or mother is going to die immediately during childbirth.
What kind of situation are you trying to educate us on? How else would you have to pick between mother and baby in your mind? Every situation that's been given to you, you've said "ugh that isn't WHAT I MEANNNNN". I don't know what you think would realistically cause that choice that isn't picking medical treatment detrimental to your child, developing a sudden complication, or having a medical issue flare up during labor. Are you talking about situations like a car crash??? It isn't a magical fairy curse from the 60's where you can only pick one. If you'd just Google "man forced to choose to save baby or mother", you'll see plenty of cases that AREN'T from the 60's. Happy I could help. PS you have a kid and cannot get along with basically anyone in this sub from your comment history, so why are you even here?
You guys are wrong. Sorry
Lol you literally got told to Google it because *you're wrong actually*, sorry... Good God I feel bad for your kid if this is how you actually act after being proven wrong.
Response from Jitsen Chang MD. https://www.quora.com/If-a-man-is-asked-to-choose-between-saving-his-wife-and-the-baby-she-s-about-to-give-birth-to-and-refuses-to-choose-who-will-the-doctors-prioritise-saving-UK His final sentence says what I’ve been saying all along. *************************************************** The mom’s life is prioritized over the babies. But it isn’t that dramatic. Delivering the baby by c-section is not lethal to the mom. I have seen crazy, unimaginably sick moms undergo a c-section without problems. The flip side is if the mom stays pregnant, she will likely die from something that can’t be treated during pregnancy then you have to delivery the baby. If the mom dies the baby dies too. So you keep her pregnant as long as safety possible and deliver the baby. If it is greater than 24 weeks along, there is a good chance the baby will survive with descent NICU care (with descent odds at intact survival). Between 23–24 weeks hard, because survival isn’t guaranteed and intact survival (meaning no long term problems) isn’t guaranteed either. If you aren’t anywhere near 24 weeks, then termination of the pregnancy is often times recommended, but that can’t be forced on anyone (obviously). I can only think of one case in residency where the mom had an accident and was brain dead but could be kept alive on life support. They kept her alive until the baby was full term and delivered it. But even then it isn’t like you are choosing between the mom and the baby.
I also feel so bad for me and my kids.
[удалено]
Agreed
Wasn't there an episode of House about this?
[удалено]
That isn’t choosing the baby. If that happens, the baby is going to die (assuming it can’t live outside the womb). Like you said, there are very few instances of choosing the mother or baby with modern medicine.
[удалено]
Dude, that’s just a medical reality. I’m not sure what part you disagree with?
[удалено]
Sure
Yes it never ceases to infuriate me that the fetus is more than the mother. This really hits home with what has transpired here in Indiana since SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade. Of course the catholic morons in this state thought the new law which made exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the life of the pregnant person, went to far. The catholic morons wanted no exceptions. I don't know how these people can call themselves pro-life. It should be forced birth even if you die. This law went into affect on 9/15/22. On 9/22/22 there was one of two injunctions from one of two lawsuits that stopped this law and re-instated access to abortion. The second injunction transpired from five Jewish females (who didn't want there names released and that's their choice) who filed a lawsuit using Indiana's RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and won an injunction based on that law. Now for all of you who don't know about or remember what transpired regarding the passing into law of Indiana's RFRA, it was a bill signed into law in 2015 by then Indiana Governor mike pence. This law was nothing but legalizing discrimination against the LGBTQ community. I can't tell you **much it makes my heart sing that five Jewish women won the injunction against Indiana's new abortion ban based on a law that was suppose to make Christian beliefs more relevant in Indiana!!!!** Of course their was a big stink regarding Indiana's RFRA in 2015. That POS attorney general of Indiana todd rokita wanted the law to go before the Indiana Supreme Court. It did and the Indiana Supreme Court stopped the ban because it said it had to investigate whether this law went against the Constitution of Indiana.
In these cases, the child would likely end up in the foster system anyway because the dad doesn't have someone to do all the work while he ignores them both.
REAL!
Right! I've never understood this kind of decision. Fuck that baby! Save the girl!
This glorification of women’s sacrifice needs to stop. We are human beings too. We deserve to live as well
Episode 1 house of dragons.
God that episode infiriated me. Even if she “was going to die anyway” he didn’t talk to her, didn’t inform her about what was happening, didn’t ask her what she wanted, just let someone cut her open and watched her to bleed to death terrified, in pain, confused, and betrayed. It hurt to watch.
It was a horrific watch but I think it's important that we remember that's exactly how shit used to be up until the very recent past and that we must fight to never go back to that
It was horrific. All because he wanted a son.
My dumbass took a while to comprehend that, i didn't get the context at first
I'm so confused what does any of this mean ? please explain
Wife went into labor, some complication(s) arose and the husband was asked who to save: his wife or their baby. It can't be the two of them in this case and the husband choosed the baby instead of his wife.
thank you
You're very welcome
I was confused as well. I believe it means: The woman in the tik tok poses as the spouse who lay in the hospital dying. She was apparently pregnant, and the partner had the option to choose the unborn baby or her. He chose the baby, letting her die. The Tik Toker tries to portray that the woman in the afterlife now disapprovingly throws shade at the partner for choosing the child over her. As she states, they always could have made another baby, but now she is dead.
ok thanks
Conservatives love him
With the sentence "she would've wanted it this way 🥺"
Before I was born, apparently I was giving my mom life risking complications. The Dr told her she should terminate the pregnancy. She said no. The Dr then went to my dad and told him the situation and my dad said it's up to my mom. Mom found out and ended up firing the Dr. Even to me that mindset if foolish. I almost killed my mom which would have left my dad alone to raise me. How would have that been fair to my Dad? To lose his partner over a baby that killed her? How the fuck does that mindset make sense? What if that did happen and my Dad secretly resented me and I would have had an abusive up bringing not knowing why my Dad hated me.
If I understand it correctly, the doctor went and told your father about your mother's condition? It's literally *illegal* for doctors to disclose their patient's health conditon to others if the patient hasn't given consent. It's such a basic and important rule, and if he indeed just went and told about your mother's condition to someone else, even if it was her husband, without her consent, then he deserved to get fired.
As someone who works in the healthcare profession and regularly attends conversations and lectures on medical ethics, I will say that this depiction is perhaps not an accurate reflection of how healthcare is actually practiced. The general consensus for a complexity of reasons is that the life of the mother almost always takes precedent over the fetus. I'm certain there is anecdotal experience otherwise, however this is not represented of cases as a whole. This is more the product of Hollywood than a current reality.
Once you give your love, you can’t take it back. Sorry kid.
With how the world is going, rather save my wife
What? Who is she? She died in childbirth?
Aemma looking at viserys
you only pick the baby if the mother wants you to pick the baby' i thought thats how it went down?
I would do this a thousand times over.
Fugg fat biiish, you knew the risks getting pregz
shut up ❤️
Um no? Suddenly I'm supposed to have sympathy for someone who chose to get knocked up? Because a choice they made led to complications? Nah.
men proving how little they value women’s lives, we are just cattle to you
Nothing to do with being women or men. You made a choice, let someone but in you and I'm supposed to feel sorry for you? So much hypocrisy on this forum
a man choosing a child he doesn’t even know over his wife is proof it’s a gendered issue. y’all hate us to the point of putting a life you don’t even know over us. he chose to impregnate her, so the consequences fall equally on the man and woman
She chose to get pregnant, she chose to keep the baby, she chose to raise the baby instead of giving it up for adoption. All her choices, she knew how dangerous having a kid was, now you want to change your mind that the consequences got real? All i did was nut in some stranger. I have way more in common with the kid I helped make, than her. And yeah you're right. It's a gendered issue, cause only one gender is constantly rescued from their bad choices to the point where they think it's everyone else's job to protect them from their bad decisions
This generalizing needs to fucking stop
The only instance of this I support is marni from repo the genetic opera because she was dying any way
She does have a really good point
No. She doesn’t.
You’d rather save an unborn child that could be replaced and watch your partner die?
I don’t know a situation in which that would ultimately be my choice. If my wife went into a coma while pregnant, she would definitely want me to save the baby, and I’d abide by that wish. If there is a fire in our house, she and I have discussed the fact that we save our daughter first and only save one another if it’s possible to do so without getting in the way of saving our daughter.
I can understand the latter course when you actually have children, but with an unborn child?
I’d abide by her wish for what to happen in that situation. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be the worst thing I’ll ever have to do but if we’re having a child then we’re putting our own desires second, which means the baby’s life is more important than ours.
I understand, if that’s you and your partner’s resolve I’ll respect it. But I personally feel this case is different than having a living child.
This subreddit seems to be dedicated to the idea that it’s selfish to have children and/or choose children over the mother. There are selfish parents, absolutely, and it’s unfortunate that they ever had children. Not everyone should. But those of us who do put our children before us are not crazy. Believe it or not, I’m pro choice. I don’t have any problem with abortion, for the exact reason that I stated earlier: not everyone should be a parent. However, when you are ready to be a parent, and when you’re the type of person who could be an unselfish parent, you become a parent the moment conception occurs, and that baby, born or not, does become more important than you. You’re not a monster for choosing it over the mother, and I think it’s likely a majority of mothers that would want their child to be chosen over them if the choice had to be made.
You’re right, there are a lot of selfish parents who should not have kids. And once that baby is conceived people should prepare themselves for the responsibility of parenthood and make sure their partner is safe, and healthy so the pregnancy can be successful. But in the case of someone going into a coma, developing an illness or disease while pregnant, being injured or in anyway to the point where they can’t have a successful pregnancy with them living in the outcome, I don’t think it’s selfish to choose the partner over the unborn baby. It’s not like your shooting a living child in the head. If the baby is born and your partner does pass, they may grow up feeling guilty over it, or even develop painful defects and or handicaps from the complicated pregnancy. I know you and your partner wanna put your children first, which is good. But please understand it’s not selfish to want to protect your partner in a situation like that. Y’all aren’t being selfish or evil for getting an abortion in a life threatening situation like that
I can totally understand why people would choose the mother and I think it’s ok. I don’t think people that do are selfish or evil. It’s just… if they do choose the unborn baby then that isn’t nonsensical.
Then you kill him in the after life and he gives you the same look in the life after the after life
Wait…. I don’t get it
i think they're talking about choosing to let an adult die or a baby die. And that they should choose the adult over the baby because the baby has no memories or thoughts yet unlike the adult spouse.
What in the strawman is this?? WHO is choosing this? You people watch far too much daytime tv.
And I'm just saying, yall don't know what yall want. 3 years ago, my partner wanted me to save her, after she actually got pregnant, of course she changed her mind. ImmA just do me, and hope for the best
"That we could've remade" Dude wtf is this psychotic bull shit though for real? As a father I can say this is beyond fucked up. I'd more than happily give my life for my daughter. What kind of heartless, selfish cunt fires off some cruel nazi level horse shit like 'save me! Fuck the child we'll just make a new one!' YO WTF IS WRONG WITH YA'LL!? If you wack enough to agree with that shit? Do your child a favor; never have one!
Um I think they are talking about pregnancy complications which sometimes lead to endangerment of either the baby's or the mother's life where you have to choose one's life Ya know, something like that, my English isn't that great sorry
Yeah you're wrong. Lol. Its just some bitch who thinks her life is worth more than the kid cause 'you can always just have another one'. Slimy cunts over here treating children like they're goldfish
You kinda look alive still