Republican Politician Says Women Should Be Forced to Carry Dead Fetuses to Term

Wingnuts • April 2017 • Views: 2,528

Earlier this week, during a committee hearing for an abortion ban that is being proposed in Iowa, a Republican state representative, Shannon Lundgren, mounted a troubling defense of her hardline stance that a woman should not be able to terminate her pregnancy after 20 weeks. The anti-abortion politician suggested that women who miscarry after 20 weeks of pregnancy should carry their dead fetus to term, video footage of the hearing shows.

According to Newsweek, the state legislature is considering a new 20-week abortion ban after the failure of a “heartbeat bill”—which would have made early-term abortion illegal once a heartbeat is detected. Lundgren is the sponsor of the bill in the House.

More: Republican Politician Says Women Should Be Forced to Carry Dead Fetuses to Term

Recent Pages by ggt (Birth Control Works):
The Nationalist's Delusion Sorry Grumpy Cat, Study Finds Dogs Are Brainier Than Cats - Neuroscience News Republican Apostate Congressman Tells Black Anti-Abortion Rights Activist 'You're Ignorant' How Many American Women Die From Causes Related To... -- ProPublica

Jump to bottom

7 comments

Anymouse Apr 2, 2017 • 7:51:25pm

I read about that yesterday. I can’t imagine someone (even an anti-abortion supporter) being so unimaginably cruel.

Not only that, I know someone in Missouri who was forced to do precisely that (carry a dead foetus) because no hospital would do an abortion. After over a week, she became incredibly ill (presumably from the foetus literally rotting inside her), necessitating emergency surgery that cost way more than the abortion would have in the first place.

(That might also have been a motivation for the hospitals in question: Profit.)

Teukka Apr 2, 2017 • 9:04:33pm

When does the disconnect with reality become so great it can be called a proper delusion or even psychosis?

CriticalDragon1177 Apr 2, 2017 • 9:52:13pm

re: #1 Anymouse

You would think at least they wouldn’t want to force someone to carry an already dead unborn child to term. They do after all say that they’re “pro life,” and even the most radical anti abortion fanatic wouldn’t say that something is alive that is already dead. Even assuming they were correct and abortion was “murder,” removing a dead unborn child would not be “murder” since its already dead. You can’t murder a corpse.

What good could they possibly thing stopping her from having ending her pregnancy do under those circumstances?

allegro Apr 2, 2017 • 10:03:54pm

re: #3 CriticalDragon1177

You would think at least they wouldn’t want to force someone to carry an already dead unborn child to term. They do after all say that they’re “pro life,” and even the most radical anti abortion fanatic wouldn’t say that something is alive that is already dead. Even assuming they were correct and abortion was “murder,” removing a dead unborn child would not be “murder” since its already dead. You can’t murder a corpse.

What good could they possibly thing stopping her from having ending her pregnancy do under those circumstances?

Good isn’t the point. A woman who cannot birth a live baby isn’t a proper incubator and therefore should die with the fetus so she can then be revered for her sacrifice to pay for her sins.

The Vicious Babushka Apr 3, 2017 • 4:10:17am

This is what caused the death of Savita Halappanavar, the young woman in Ireland. She developed a massive infection and by the time the doctors were able to convince the abortion police that her condition was “life threatening” she was already dead.

This is why, if you are going to make an “exception” for “the life of the mother” that there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, because while the abortion police are dicking around trying to decide if a condition is “life threatening” the infection spreads faster than they can make up their freaking minds.

The Vicious Babushka Apr 3, 2017 • 4:54:54am

I think these idiots may be conflating a dead fetus with a non-viable fetus, the latter has a heartbeat but may have undeveloped lungs or kidneys that will not allow it to survive outside the womb.

These cruel idiots want the non-viable fetus carried to term so the horrified mother can watch as it dies in agony.

Kafitrar Apr 3, 2017 • 9:30:25am

re: #3 CriticalDragon1177

You would think at least they wouldn’t want to force someone to carry an already dead unborn child to term. They do after all say that they’re “pro life,” and even the most radical anti abortion fanatic wouldn’t say that something is alive that is already dead. Even assuming they were correct and abortion was “murder,” removing a dead unborn child would not be “murder” since its already dead. You can’t murder a corpse.

What good could they possibly thing stopping her from having ending her pregnancy do under those circumstances?

I suspect that they think that women will use this as a loophole to bypass restrictions on late-term abortions.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!