Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 29 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15227371
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Arguments from ignorance can be dismissed for two reasons:

1, Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.
2. You have no evidence.

Consequently, your assertion can be safely dismissed, and the logical consequence is that unborn kids will have more rights than born kids where abortion is banned.


So we can ignore your claim that born kids would have less rights than fetuses?

I mean, even Roe v Wade states the opposite is true, if anything.
#15227394
wat0n wrote:So we can ignore your claim that born kids would have less rights than fetuses?

I mean, even Roe v Wade states the opposite is true, if anything.


No, you seem to be misunderstanding.
#15227400
No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. Roe v Wade states explicitly that whatever fetuses rights had by 1973 were contingent on birth, except for protection against abortion for states that banned the procedure. And the ban on abortion wasn't even established to protect fetuses, in the 19th century, but because abortion was regarded by the medical community as being more dangerous than carrying the pregnancy to term for the mother herself. Most of the procedures to make abortion safe would only be invented by the 1940s.

All of this was possible, of course, because the SCOTUS concluded the Constitution did not consider fetuses to be persons and that it had never been interpreted in that way when abortion was banned in the 19th century nor it was interpreted in those terms with regards to the rights of fetuses. Had it concluded the opposite, states would have an interest to protect fetuses' lives for their own sake. That's what you can conclude from the ruling itself, if you read it.
#15227404
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog this thread is exactly about Roe v Wade :roll:

You claimed the personhood question is not relevant regarding abortion. Even Roe v Wade disagrees with you.


No, you have clearly misunderstood my argument on more than one level.
#15227406
This is so fucking backwards and I am fucking pissed off and angry!
When the fuck can all religious moralizing just die the fuck off already. I'm so sick of it. Religion is the most disgusting thing to ever happen to this world.
Why is it that what a couple of men put to paper a thousand years ago is more important then what real living breathing women today want and need?! I hope Amy Coney Barrett believes in hell, and that that is where she will be promoted to once her term on the SCOTUS is over. What a disgusting woman, surrounded by disgusting men. I am so glad I'm not an American, but equally, I feel their pain and thus can have no true gladness. I can't even imagine what young American women must be feeling about their futures right now.... this is so depressing.

post.script. also this is just the tip of the iceberg on the kind of repressive havoc this supreme court is going to wreck on its country over the next half a century. I suppose this is the price one pays for democracy. Two steps forward one step back bullshit.
#15227415
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you have clearly misunderstood my argument on more than one level.


Another tactic of yours is to say that you were "misunderstood" when you have no further way to support your claims.

@froggo I'd say your issue then is with Christianity since other religions may not be keen on abortion, but don't regard it as such a big deal and regard it as something "bad" or even "unethical" but do not proscribe it or regard abortion as "sinful".

You can provide non-religious arguments against abortion, too. The topic of the ethics of abortion in the Western culture goes all the way back to ancient Greece, after all, and it's never quite been solved.
#15227416
wat0n wrote:Another tactic of yours is to say that you were "misunderstood" when you have no further way to support your claims.


No.

This is simply your oft repeated tactic of deflecting from your own errors by blaming me for imaginary ones.

@froggo I'd say your issue then is with Christianity since other religions may not be keen on abortion, but don't regard it as such a big deal and regard it as something "bad" or even "unethical" but do not proscribe it or regard abortion as "sinful".

You can provide non-religious arguments against abortion, too. The topic of the ethics of abortion in the Western culture goes all the way back to ancient Greece, after all, and it's never quite been solved.


The bans against abortions did not start in the USA until 1880.
#15227420
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

This is simply your oft repeated tactic of deflecting from your own errors by blaming me for imaginary ones.


No. I already showed even the SCOTUS agrees a fetus' personhood is relevant when it comes to abortion and states could ban abortion under those grounds alone if fetuses are persons. Thing is, it makes it clear in Roe v Wade it does not consider fetuses to be persons.

I know you can't help deflecting and so you just need to believe people always misunderstand you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The bans against abortions did not start in the USA until 1880.


And as I also told you, another thing mentioned by the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade was that those bans started because the medical community regarded abortion as being riskier for the pregnant woman than carrying the fetus to term. Those abortion bans were never about fetuses and even the Texas Attorney General admitted he could not find evidence of this in the available legislative records, the bans were about the mothers.

So why do you support a court ruling you've never read?
#15227422
wat0n wrote:No. I already showed even the SCOTUS agrees a fetus' personhood is relevant when it comes to abortion and states could ban abortion under those grounds alone if fetuses are persons. Thing is, it makes it clear in Roe v Wade it does not consider fetuses to be persons.


Okay. Since I was not discussing some court case from an undeveloped country and this does not contradict my claims and rebuttals, I will assume you misunderstood my arguments if you think it contradicts me.

And as I also told you, another thing mentioned by the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade was that those bans started because the medical community regarded abortion as being riskier for the pregnant woman than carrying the fetus to term. Those abortion bans were never about fetuses and even the Texas Attorney General admitted he could not find evidence of this in the available legislative records, the bans were about the mothers.


I doubt it.

This seems like another argument from ignorance like your incorrect claim that parents are forced to donate blood and tissue to born children.

It seems like bans on abortion started because midwives and homeopaths were beginning to threaten the profits of doctors performing abortions and the (male) doctors wanted to shut down the professional aspirations of the (mostly female) competition.
#15227425
Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay. Since I was not discussing some court case from an undeveloped country and this does not contradict my claims and rebuttals, I will assume you misunderstood my arguments if you think it contradicts me.


I'm not sure about what undeveloped country you're speaking of. This thread deals with a court case in the United States.

And more importantly, you whine about arguments from ignorance while arguing from ignorance yourself.

Unfortunately for you, the SCOTUS itself said explicitly the personhood of a fetus was most definitely a factor to consider, and then decided fetuses are not persons.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.

This seems like another argument from ignorance like your incorrect claim that parents are forced to donate blood and tissue to born children.

It seems like bans on abortion started because midwives and homeopaths were beginning to threaten the profits of doctors performing abortions and the (male) doctors wanted to shut down the professional aspirations of the (mostly female) competition.


If you read Roe v Wade you would neither doubt anything nor you would argue from ignorance like you are now:

Roe v Wade wrote:Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence.

70
It has been argued occasionally that these laws were the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct. Texas, however, does not advance this justification in the present case, and it appears that no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously.42 The appellants and amici contend, moreover, that this is not a proper state purpose at all and suggest that, if it were, the Texas statutes are overbroad in protecting it since the law fails to distinguish between married and unwed mothers.

71
A second reason is concerned with abortion as a medical procedure. When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman.43 This was particularly true prior to the development of antisepsis. Antiseptic techniques, of course, were based on discoveries by Lister, Pasteur, and others first announced in 1867, but were not generally accepted and employed until about the turn of the century. Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today. Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.

72
Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth.44 Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain. The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal 'abortion mills' strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy,

73
The third reason is the State's interest-some phrase it in terms of duty-in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception.45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to life birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

74
Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life.46 Pointing to the absence of legislative history to support the contention, they claim that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. Because medical advances have lessened this concern, at least with respect to abortion in early pregnancy, they argue that with respect to such abortions the laws can no longer be justified by any state interest. There is some scholarly support for this view of original purpose.47 The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the State's interest in protecting the woman's health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus.48 Proponents of this view point out that in many States, including Texas,49 by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another.50 They claim that adoption of the 'quickening' distinction through received common law and state statutes tacitly recognizes the greater health hazards inherent in late abortion and impliedly repudiates the theory that life begins at conception.


So why do you support a court ruling you have evidently not read?
#15227427
wat0n wrote:I'm not sure about what undeveloped country you're speaking of. This thread deals with a court case in the United States.


The USA is a developing country in this context.

And more importantly, you whine about arguments from ignorance while arguing from ignorance yourself.


Insulting me by implying that I am incapable of rational thought and my arguments are mere whining is not a logical rebuttal.

Unfortunately for you, the SCOTUS itself said explicitly the personhood of a fetus was most definitely a factor to consider, and then decided fetuses are not persons.


Sure.

My arguments do not depend on a court case from a developing country with a poor track record of human rights.

If you read Roe v Wade you would neither doubt anything nor you would argue from ignorance like you are now:


You are making the error of assuming that a person’s stated intentions are the truth.

By that token , you must believe everything Putin says about his invasion of Ukraine.
#15227431
Pants-of-dog wrote:The USA is a developing country in this context.


No. The USA has more lenient abortion laws than most of Europe, if abortion is your measure.

Not that abortion is a measure of development anyway.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Insulting me by implying that I am incapable of rational thought and my arguments are mere whining is not a logical rebuttal.


Did I claim so? No, I simply stated a fact: You are arguing from ignorance and you whine when others do the same.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

My arguments do not depend on a court case from a developing country with a poor track record of human rights.


I still don't know what country would that be. Socialist Cuba, maybe?

But we're speaking about the US, specifically about Roe v Wade. Thus far your arguments have all consisted in red herrings, tearing strawmen down, illogical or simply factually incorrect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are making the error of assuming that a person’s stated intentions are the truth.

By that token , you must believe everything Putin says about his invasion of Ukraine.


So what you are saying is that all representatives in all states where abortion was banned conspired to ban abortion in the 1880s due to their ethical views on the matter and that the procedure was safe for women at the time?

Nonsense.

And remember, you are the one who then pontificates about how much he knows about medicine ;)
#15227435
wat0n wrote:No. The USA has more lenient abortion laws than most of Europe, if abortion is your measure.

Not that abortion is a measure of development anyway.


Not quite.

In terms of the human rights context, amount of medical resources, how inequality impacts access to care, and other factors directly related to how easily pregnant people can access abortion, the USA is a developing country.

This is true even if some European countries are also failures in this regard.

…..


Again, personal attacks are not a good argument, or a good look.

I still don't know what country would that be. Socialist Cuba, maybe?

But we're speaking about the US, specifically about Roe v Wade. Thus far your arguments have all consisted in red herrings, tearing strawmen down, illogical or simply factually incorrect.


Which argument exactly do you think you have defeated?

So what you are saying is that all representatives in all states where abortion was banned conspired to ban abortion in the 1880s due to their ethical views on the matter and that the procedure was safe for women at the time?

Nonsense.

And remember, you are the one who then pontificates about how much he knows about medicine ;)


No. That is not what I am saying at all. You misunderstood.

Instead, I am pointing out that you are taking a single stated intention, assuming it is true (which is an argument from ignorance) and assuming it is the only factor (which is not only also an argument from ignorance but may also involve ignoring parts of your own evidence).
#15227438
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite.

In terms of the human rights context, amount of medical resources, how inequality impacts access to care, and other factors directly related to how easily pregnant people can access abortion, the USA is a developing country.

This is true even if some European countries are also failures in this regard.


No, the USA isn't behind Europe in any of those regards. It definitely has the resources to provide access to abortion, even charities do.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, personal attacks are not a good argument, or a good look.


Let me see, so when you say someone else makes an argument from ignorance you're personally attacking him or her?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Which argument exactly do you think you have defeated?


All of them, really. No, fetuses would not have more rights than born people if they were recognized as persons and abortion banned: No, you can't really say bodily autonomy trumps parental obligations nor you can say you can endanger and harm someone else and then use bodily autonomy as a defense. No, bodily autonomy isn't absolute and can and is restricted to preserve life and even public health, subject to proportionality in the restriction.

No, whether a fetus is a person or not is not irrelevant to abortion, that much should be clear by now and the SCOTUS itself states so explicitly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That is not what I am saying at all. You misunderstood.

Instead, I am pointing out that you are taking a single stated intention, assuming it is true (which is an argument from ignorance) and assuming it is the only factor (which is not only also an argument from ignorance but may also involve ignoring parts of your own evidence).


Certainly there were other factors, neither I nor the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade claimed so. For starters, abortion bans were popular among many voters when those laws were passed and the AMA had campaigned for banning them based on the Hippocratic Oath (and not on Christianity or gender roles, even more so since the stance of Christian denominations - the Church included - was that abortion was okay before quickening while the Hippocratic Oath condemns abortion at any stage), if anything the SCOTUS does go through the AMA's historical positions regarding abortion in Roe v Wade, although the SCOTUS does not state the AMA's stance of abortion was ever used as an argument used by the legislatures to ban abortion.

Yet, proponents of abortion themselves would argue before the Supreme Court that abortion had been banned in the 19th century only due to an interest in protecting the mother's health, and would point out that at no point there had been other concerns such as punishing unmarried women (the Texas law itself did not draw a distinction) or preserving fetal life and would argue those abortion bans were thus unconstitutional since their stated motivation had ceased to be valid by 1950 in litigation on this matter. That is, while abortion bans were popular and there were interest groups pushing for them, ultimately legislatures settled on a different line of reasoning.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely using religious arguments would have been somehow unpopular or even unconstitutional as a reason to ban abortion in the second half of the 19th century. As @Drlee mentioned, several states refer to God in the preamble to their Constitutions even today. So why would the legislatures in 1860, 1870 or 1880 shy away from using that type of argument to justify banning abortion? A religious justification for some piece of legislation would not by itself amount to a First Amendment violation either.

So care to provide evidence that we should somehow assume the legislative record lies?
#15227440
When the fuck can all religious moralizing just die the fuck off already. I'm so sick of it. Religion is the most disgusting thing to ever happen to this world.


Oh grow up. The overwhelming majority of women who have had abortion are religious. In fact, roughly 40% of American women have had an induced abortion.

Go look for another boogeyman.
#15227448
wat0n wrote:No, the USA isn't behind Europe in any of those regards. It definitely has the resources to provide access to abortion, even charities do.


You have the money to feed a homeless person for a month.

Do you?

If not, then you understand how the USA can have the resources to be a developed country but since it does not allocate its resources intelligently, it is a de facto developing country in this regard.

Let me see, so when you say someone else makes an argument from ignorance you're personally attacking him or her?


No.

If you politely point out when the other person is using a fallacy, that is not a personal attack.

When you dismiss someone else’s argument as whining, that is a personal attack.

All of them, really. No, fetuses would not have more rights than born people if they were recognized as persons and abortion banned:


Please present a quote that shows that born kids would have the right to demand blood and tissue from their parents.

And no, you did not provide this before. You provided a link but no quote.

No, you can't really say bodily autonomy trumps parental obligations


I never made that claim.

nor you can say you can endanger and harm someone else and then use bodily autonomy as a defense.


Nor that one.

No, bodily autonomy isn't absolute and can and is restricted to preserve life and even public health, subject to proportionality in the restriction.


At this point, I have told you kore than once that I never made this claim and even clarified it for you several times.

To continue to believe I made this claim at this point would require your to openly ignore explicit replies to this exact accusation.

No, whether a fetus is a person or not is not irrelevant to abortion, that much should be clear by now and the SCOTUS itself states so explicitly.


It is in many developed countries, as I previously showed.

Certainly there were other factors, neither I nor the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade claimed so. For starters, abortion bans were popular among many voters when those laws were passed


Were they?

Please provide a survey of voters from 1880 showing a majority of registered voters were in support of making abortion illegal.

and the AMA had campaigned for banning them based on the Hippocratic Oath (and not on Christianity or gender roles,


Did they?

Please quote the exact AMA policy paper that explicitly states the exact reasons for opposing abortion in 1880.

even more so since the stance of Christian denominations - the Church included - was that abortion was okay before quickening while the Hippocratic Oath condemns abortion at any stage),


Please quote the medical science showing that abortions are condemned by the Hippocratic Oath, Take specific care to provide quotes from medical associations that are from jurisdictions that allow abortion and yet still use the Hippocratic oath and that clarify the apparent contradiction.

if anything the SCOTUS does go through the AMA's historical positions regarding abortion in Roe v Wade, although the SCOTUS does not state the AMA's stance of abortion was ever used as an argument used by the legislatures to ban abortion.


Even if the AMA stance is irrelevant, you still brought it up as an argument. Please provide the evidence required.

Yet, proponents of abortion themselves would argue before the Supreme Court that abortion had been banned in the 19th century only due to an interest in protecting the mother's health, and would point out that at no point there had been other concerns such as punishing unmarried women (the Texas law itself did not draw a distinction) or preserving fetal life and would argue those abortion bans were thus unconstitutional since their stated motivation had ceased to be valid by 1950 in litigation on this matter. That is, while abortion bans were popular and there were interest groups pushing for them, ultimately legislatures settled on a different line of reasoning.


Please note that 1950 was after 1880, and so this is not relevant to why abortion was banned in the first place.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely using religious arguments would have been somehow unpopular or even unconstitutional as a reason to ban abortion in the second half of the 19th century. As @Drlee mentioned, several states refer to God in the preamble to their Constitutions even today. So why would the legislatures in 1860, 1870 or 1880 shy away from using that type of argument to justify banning abortion? A religious justification for some piece of legislation would not by itself amount to a First Amendment violation either.

So care to provide evidence that we should somehow assume the legislative record lies?


This is a strawman, since I never discussed religious arguments at all.
#15227454
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have the money to feed a homeless person for a month.

Do you?

If not, then you understand how the USA can have the resources to be a developed country but since it does not allocate its resources intelligently, it is a de facto developing country in this regard.


So your definition is basically "a country is developed if it has a minimum stock of resources and spends them in a way acceptable to me"?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

If you politely point out when the other person is using a fallacy, that is not a personal attack.

When you dismiss someone else’s argument as whining, that is a personal attack.


I wouldn't say so. Whining is just that, whining.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please present a quote that shows that born kids would have the right to demand blood and tissue from their parents.

And no, you did not provide this before. You provided a link but no quote.


Why don't you present a quote saying parents would not have an obligation to?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never made that claim.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Nor that one.


Then how can you be so sure that fetuses would have more rights than born children?

Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, I have told you kore than once that I never made this claim and even clarified it for you several times.

To continue to believe I made this claim at this point would require your to openly ignore explicit replies to this exact accusation.


Except that you did when you said unvaccinated adults wouldn't have their bodily autonomy limited if forced to vaccinate to be able to attend higher education.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is in many developed countries, as I previously showed.


Would you cite the ruling by the Canadian court just like I did with Roe v Wade?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Were they?

Please provide a survey of voters from 1880 showing a majority of registered voters were in support of making abortion illegal.


I said, "many" not "most".

Pants-of-dog wrote:Did they?

Please quote the exact AMA policy paper that explicitly states the exact reasons for opposing abortion in 1880.


You can read Roe v Wade, it quotes AMA's stance on the matter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the medical science showing that abortions are condemned by the Hippocratic Oath, Take specific care to provide quotes from medical associations that are from jurisdictions that allow abortion and yet still use the Hippocratic oath and that clarify the apparent contradiction.


"Medical science"? This is a bioethics question.

And I don't see what the contradiction would be. Medical associations do not write the law, after all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Even if the AMA stance is irrelevant, you still brought it up as an argument. Please provide the evidence required.


I'm simply conceding the idea that there were those who were opposed to abortion for other reasons.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that 1950 was after 1880, and so this is not relevant to why abortion was banned in the first place.


I think you misunderstood. According to the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade, by 1950 scientific innovations done during the previous century had become widespread enough that abortion could indeed be performed safely for women, at least before viability, hence invalidating the original rationale for the abortion bans passed by 1880.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a strawman, since I never discussed religious arguments at all.


So what would have been covered up by state legislatures in your view? Where would the objections to abortion come from as far as the legislators were concerned? Religion seems like the most obvious reason given we're dealing with 19th century USA.
#15227476
wat0n wrote:So your definition is basically "a country is developed if it has a minimum stock of resources and spends them in a way acceptable to me"?


So instead of trying to refute my point, you are just accusing me of being self-centred.

In this context, it would be more correct to say “a country is developed if it has a minimum stock of resources and spends them in a way acceptable to medical professionals and other stakeholders in the abortion issue”.

I wouldn't say so. Whining is just that, whining.


Doubling down on your rudeness is not a logical or empirical rebuttal.

Why don't you present a quote saying parents would not have an obligation to?


Because it is your argument.

Please provide a quote from your link clearly showing that parents have an obligation to provide blood and tissue.

Then how can you be so sure that fetuses would have more rights than born children?


I have already explained this at least three times.

Except that you did when you said unvaccinated adults wouldn't have their bodily autonomy limited if forced to vaccinate to be able to attend higher education.


No. You misunderstood.

When someone says that you are not addressing their argument, it s stupid to tell someone else that they do not know their own argument.

I am going to ignore this from now on since it is merely a strawman that has already been explicitly addressed three or four times now.

Would you cite the ruling by the Canadian court just like I did with Roe v Wade?


I already did.

But if you want it again, it is R vs. Morgentaler 1984.

I said, "many" not "most".


Were they?

Please provide a survey of voters from 1880 showing a significant percentage of registered voters were in support of making abortion illegal.

You can read Roe v Wade, it quotes AMA's stance on the matter.


No, it is your argument and therefore you can support it.

Please quote the text from RvW that explicitly states the exact reasons of the AMA for opposing abortion in 1880.

"Medical science"? This is a bioethics question.

And I don't see what the contradiction would be. Medical associations do not write the law, after all.


Please quote the medical bioethics showing that abortions are condemned by the Hippocratic Oath, Take specific care to provide quotes from medical associations that are from jurisdictions that allow abortion and yet still use the Hippocratic oath and that clarify the apparent contradiction.

I'm simply conceding the idea that there were those who were opposed to abortion for other reasons.


I am not concerned with your motives.

Please provide the evidence requested.

I think you misunderstood. According to the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade, by 1950 scientific innovations done during the previous century had become widespread enough that abortion could indeed be performed safely for women, at least before viability, hence invalidating the original rationale for the abortion bans passed by 1880.


Yes, that has been made clear several times.

This is irrelevant because you made a claim about 1880.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 42

The factory owner doesnt produce anything per s[…]

What is your definition of ‘socialism’, @noemon […]

An 18-year-old gunman opened fire on Wednesday (A[…]

'Jail' = gEnOcIde cAmP Our resident CIA shills he[…]