Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 46 - 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

#15230338
wat0n wrote:I left you a link to read.

So...?


So I am still unclear on what you are asking.

Did the doctor suggest this?

Did the pregnant person?

Why?

Is this the only option?

Why this procedure?

Does this kill the child?

If so, why would you suggest a procedure that kills the child?

Is it the only possible one?

Can the child be removed without killing it?
#15230341
Yes, if the exception is compassion, then the lack of exemption is a lack of compassion.


Not necessarily. The lack of an exemption may be the confluence faithful devotion to the right to life and an unassailable political majority of like-minded people.

And that makes sense since the dirty sluts do not deserve compassion, right?


The fetus is being killed.

It is killed because of the actions of the rapist.

Ergo, it is being punished for the sins of someone else.


Interesting take on it. It seems you have changed your mind and now consider fetuses people capable of enduring punishment. It appears @wat0n has made arguments that have changed your opinion.

But in any case, it would not be the rapist who is occasioning the death of the baby, but rather the mother. I say this because she has the option of completing the pregnancy and never seeing the child which is put up for adoption or, realizing its innocence, even keeping it.

You really need to control your emotions. This entire thread has been, of necessity, all about emotion. You are losing your way and it is causing you to make disjointed emotional outbursts.
#15230343
wat0n wrote:Simple, the pregnant woman wants one. Her reason is irrelevant, it's her body, her rules.

She signs an informed consent form saying she understands the risks.


Please answer the questions asked.

Thanks.

Because what you seem to be asking is:

Would you support a weird scenario where a woman wants to kill a viable child even though her doctor has pointed out there are safer options that would remove said child and would also keep the child alive?

So please clarify. Thanks.

————-

@Drlee

Are you talking to me?

It seems like you might be because you quote some of my words, but then agin, you also accuse me of holding positions previously that I never have.

Let me know, thanks.
#15230350
@Pants-of-dog

Don't worry. I am willing to overlook your inconsistency because of your emotional involvement in this argument.

Let me know if you want to explain where I am wrong.
#15230362
@Pants-of-dog why does it matter that the fetus is viable? Why do you call it a "child"? You said that she can do whatever she wants, since it's her body. And that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person, you know like children are.

Now, going back to rape. I looked for some info and found this:

Kilpatrick, citing the National Women's Study wrote:Rape victims were 13 times more likely than non-crime victims to have attempted suicide (13% Vs 1%).


So among the raped women surveyed, 13% had attempted suicide and, well, survived (dead people don't answer surveys). This paper suggests the case fatality rate of suicide attempts is 8.8% so taking these two together would suggest ~14% of raped women will attempt to kill themselves at some point, 1% will succeed. It's unlikely pregnancy would reduce this rate and quite possibly it would make a suicide attempt more likely, if anything, since she'll remember constantly why she's pregnant to begin with.

@Drlee @Pants-of-dog @XogGyux Would you say then this pregnancy arising from being raped puts the woman at risk of reaching a mental state that would lead her to end her life or severely harm herself? I'm not even getting into PTSD or other mental health and substance abuse issues. Just self-harm and suicide. Would this justify abortion under the "risk to life or severe harm" clause, regardless of how we label the fetus?
#15230374
wat0n wrote:Same could be said about any person's morality.

I think though that there's clearly a personal injury if a woman ends up pregnant as a result of rape, and it seems I'm not the only one who believes that. The paper I posted earlier also mentions courts in some jurisdictions that did not establish pregnancy could be a form of tort resulting from rape took the stance that since pregnancy was an inherent result of rape, it wasn't separate from it so it couldn't be a different legal injury. This pushed some states to pass these laws, if anything.


Again, you can throw crap to the wall to see what sticks. The reality is that what you are suggesting is borderline moronic and certainly unethical.
If you crash into my car and I injure my back, you might be responsible for the car damages, and my medical bills for therapy and/or surgery if needed. You might even get some sort of punitive damages if you were negligent, etc.
But if I go for a spinal surgery and during the operation I die or become paralyzed, you don't go to jail for murder. You are trying to invent a weird ass criminal justice system that is illogical, unfair and ultimately it cannot be implemented due to the complexity of the calculations involved.

You can say the same thing while this 37-week old fetus is inside the womb.

No, you cannot. If you stab a 37w fetus inside a womb, chances are you will injure if not kill the mother in the process.

Why isn't abortion an option here? Is it materially impossible?

Impossible? No, I suppose you could kill it and then induce a delivery of a stillborn.

Why wouldn't you respect the patient's wishes to be treated how she wishes if she wants to have an abortion and kill the fetus in the process?

Because we don't live in fantasy land. Abortions are to terminate pregnancy, not to kill fetus. The fetus dying is the "side effect" of the abortion but not the goal. Similarly to having electricity in your home. THe side effect is that you can get electrocuted or your home catch fire with an electrical spark, but neither of those outcomes are the intended goal, the intended goal is to power your house, equipment, etc. The intended goal of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. If the pregnancy can be terminated by a (reasonable/safe) delivery instead, it is preferred.
Again, the mother can request a pregnancy termination/abortion, and she might have a few options, but not all options are available at all times.
It is similar to when you want to expell someone from your house. You have many options, you can ask politely the person, you can call the cops, and you can just shoot them on the face. Depending on the circumstances, you might be justified to do any of those, but not all at all times.

Oh so now it would then be okay to deny her the option to choose the treatment she wants?

It does not work that way. You are a patient, you present your case to your doctor, and your doctor offers you the options that are appropriate at the appropriate time. If you go at 20 weeks and want/need an abortion, you might get that option, but you go at 37week, which is basically a term pregnancy, and you won't get that offered to you (* disclaimer, who knows maybe there is a rogue obstetrician that does, he/she would not be representative of the medical community, alternatively it might be an option in case of a pregnancy that is expected to be a stillborn, AKA we find out around week 37 that fetus did not develop a brain, at which case I think it is possible that there might be some abortion-like options as a palliative pathway).

Why wouldn't we ban abortion at the 37th week (or another similar stage of fetal development) except to save the mother's life or from serious injury again?

To save the mother's life you deliver the baby. Again, abortion is a pregnancy termination procedure, not a fetus killing one. At 37week there is little to no difference on the way we would handle an abortion if at all possible.

I agree with you insofar abortion is indeed a way to terminate pregnancy.

Then stop talking nonsense.

And if there's another way to terminate the pregnancy that doesn't kill the fetus, well, it's generally hard to justify not using it. I guess you can still accept not using it if you think the fetus isn't a person, but let's be honest here, normally it would be the preferred procedure.

One day, there might be a way to safely/efficiently/and economically remove the embryo/fetus and incubate it outside of a pregnant woman. Once that day arrives, then we will have to answer your personhood question and have to come to terms with the decision of whether all those embryos/fetuses need to be protected and/or if a subset of them can be discarded.
At this point in time, all of that is irrelevant because the incubator is a human being and the incubator can decline to be an incubator and we should respect that.

Semantics. That's a decision made by doctors.

That is not a decision. If anything, that would be an assessment.

Yes, all up until the fetus is out and the umbilical cord has been cut. Right? That was your position a while ago.

For 999/1000 times, just being out of the mother's body is enough. The umbilical cord only comes into place if you were going to do something to the fetus that could potentially affect the mother through the cord. Aside from electricity, I cannot think of many other things capable of affecting the mother although perhaps there are.
Practically speaking, just being born individualizes the mother/fetus situation. If we are talking about absolutes and/or more unlikely scenarios, then cutting the cord would be the last thing to do.

Just because the precise cutoff for viability is dependent on technology it doesn't mean it can't be operationalized. Here's a few operational definitions of "viability" that are still fairly specific, despite being dependent on technological availability:

Non-zero probability of survival and discharge at 1-year of age
99%+ probability of survival outside the womb
Same probability of survival outside the womb and discharge, with all the available care, as if delivery wasn't artificially induced

These can then be translated into concrete gestational age guidelines every 5 or 10 years just as plenty of other medical guidelines are, sounds like a cool work for a biostats guy. For example, the US government updates dietary guidelines every 5 years.

Why couldn't this be done for viability, even more so since viability is currently a statutory cutoff in several states so there's actually a good reason to have these guidelines for legal purposes?

That does nothing to address the problem. Only hides your motives behind fancy rules. Those "metrics" that you mention are arbitrary, which means whoever is choosing them can come up with whatever numbers they want to help them achieve what their moral/political/etc views are.
Also, this would not be a universal or national standard. Keep in mind, your local community hospital is not going to have the obstetric/gynecological and neonatology services to match industry-leading, top-performing/ranking MAYO clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Brigham Hospital, etc.

I'd even say that if you were called as an expert witness to an abortion trial you could testify that an abortion done at 24 weeks is not done after viability in that specific case, and it's possible a judge would take that view into account.

And you think that would be reasonable? To have an angry mob of people that have nothing better to do but to sue poor women for having abortions and force them to spend their time/money in court so that a doctor can go on the stand and testify that a 24w newborn would have about a coinflip chances of survival with the best medical care available and doing so would still come with about a coinflip chances of having a life-long disability such as lung/heart/brain problems?

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying ever since you introduced the 37-week example. Both delivery and abortion fulfill the bodily autonomy, so it's hard to choose abortion in this case.

Again, you are assuming that abortion would even be an option. You'd have to evaluate a case-by-case scenario including the motivations and/or need for an abortion. If the reason is "baby does not have brain" that decision was already made for you. I am not an OBGYN and I don't know if there is the possibility of administering a med that would essentially kill the fetus prior to delivery to ensure a stillbirth, that could be desirable from a palliative point of view but again, this very specific scenario is something that lies outside of my knowledge.
To be honest, if a woman at 37w shows up with a perfectly healthy pregnancy and request and abortion, chances are she will be seen by the psychiatrist :lol: :knife: .

You were the one who chose to link abortion to bodily autonomy even in this case.

I don't choose to link it. It is linked. It is linked by natural processes, there was no choice.

But now tell me, why would you protect this fetus?

I would protect all fetuses, so long they don't come into conflict with maternal body autonomy.

That is, what are your reasons for preferring inducing labor over doing an abortion assuming both have entail the same level of risk for the woman?

Probably about same I'd reckon, I don't have the statistics, don't even think statistics on "37-week-old abortions" even exists.

I recall you don't consider the fetus a child, so why would you give it this type of protection and basically treat it like a newborn in all but name?

You think people should only care for children?
I care for dogs as well just FYI.
I don't have a problem treating a fetus and a newborn the same except in cases were the fetus come into conflict with parental body autonomy (newborn cannot, see above birth/umbilical cord conversation).
#15230375
wat0n wrote:I disagree. I think it implies pregnancy is a constant reminder of how it came to pass. In this case, a constant reminder that the woman was raped.

And that is an excuse to terminate the pregnancy?
What if the pregnant woman discovers her husband cheated on her and now she wants an abortion because "the pregnancy is a constant reminder of how it came to pass"?

If you gonna base your rules around the premise that "fetuses are people and people should be protected from being killed off", rape is not a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

I'd agree that this would be barbaric to force a woman to have said pregnancy, then again I'd think it would also be barbaric to force a woman to have any other unwanted pregnancy.
#15230383
XogGyux wrote:Again, you can throw crap to the wall to see what sticks. The reality is that what you are suggesting is borderline moronic and certainly unethical.
If you crash into my car and I injure my back, you might be responsible for the car damages, and my medical bills for therapy and/or surgery if needed. You might even get some sort of punitive damages if you were negligent, etc.
But if I go for a spinal surgery and during the operation I die or become paralyzed, you don't go to jail for murder. You are trying to invent a weird ass criminal justice system that is illogical, unfair and ultimately it cannot be implemented due to the complexity of the calculations involved.


It depends, really. Why are you getting the back surgery and why did you die or become paralyzed from it? Was that back surgery absolutely necessary for you to get back to normal? Was your death or paralysis the result of the surgeon's malpractice?

You may want to read this article and also this paper, they deal with that kind of situation. The paper even mentions a case where the immediate cause of death was the rejection of a transplanted organ, one that had to be transplanted precisely because of the proximate cause of death (i.e. the injury), and it was ruled a homicide (so it was either murder or manslaughter depending on the perpetrator's intent).

If your death or paralysis during surgery was inevitable, or close to it, yes, I'd be facing the corresponding charges. I would not if your death or paralysis was the result of malpractice.

XogGyux wrote:No, you cannot. If you stab a 37w fetus inside a womb, chances are you will injure if not kill the mother in the process.


How about just aborting it instead of stabbing it?

XogGyux wrote:Impossible? No, I suppose you could kill it and then induce a delivery of a stillborn.


Indeed.

XogGyux wrote:Because we don't live in fantasy land. Abortions are to terminate pregnancy, not to kill fetus. The fetus dying is the "side effect" of the abortion but not the goal. Similarly to having electricity in your home. THe side effect is that you can get electrocuted or your home catch fire with an electrical spark, but neither of those outcomes are the intended goal, the intended goal is to power your house, equipment, etc. The intended goal of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. If the pregnancy can be terminated by a (reasonable/safe) delivery instead, it is preferred.
Again, the mother can request a pregnancy termination/abortion, and she might have a few options, but not all options are available at all times.
It is similar to when you want to expell someone from your house. You have many options, you can ask politely the person, you can call the cops, and you can just shoot them on the face. Depending on the circumstances, you might be justified to do any of those, but not all at all times.


So then it would not be justifiable to terminate the pregnancy by killing the fetus, would it?

Because that's my point. You can't just expel the person from your house by shooting them on the face without at least trying other methods, if those were feasible (to leave the cases in which someone can be presumed to be there as an aggressor, e.g. if he just got inside after forcing a lock, aside). You can't just claim he was inside your property, even more so if you had allowed him in beforehand.

XogGyux wrote:It does not work that way. You are a patient, you present your case to your doctor, and your doctor offers you the options that are appropriate at the appropriate time. If you go at 20 weeks and want/need an abortion, you might get that option, but you go at 37week, which is basically a term pregnancy, and you won't get that offered to you (* disclaimer, who knows maybe there is a rogue obstetrician that does, he/she would not be representative of the medical community, alternatively it might be an option in case of a pregnancy that is expected to be a stillborn, AKA we find out around week 37 that fetus did not develop a brain, at which case I think it is possible that there might be some abortion-like options as a palliative pathway).


So then doctors are indeed not simply "respecting all the patient's wishes when it comes to her treatment", but actually balancing interests (even if the mother's interests take precedence). Why else would this doc be "rogue" if he was just abiding by this principle (the woman's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct) strictly?

XogGyux wrote:To save the mother's life you deliver the baby. Again, abortion is a pregnancy termination procedure, not a fetus killing one. At 37week there is little to no difference on the way we would handle an abortion if at all possible.


XogGyux wrote:Then stop talking nonsense.


I'm assuming that for some reason delivery would lead to the woman's death and an abortion wouldn't. In that case, yes, I can imagine you can perform an abortion legally regardless of the stage of pregnancy. At least Roe v Wade would clearly allow it.

Abortion is both a pregnancy termination AND a fetus killing procedure since the killing of the fetus is inherent to abortion, it's just that sometimes it's the only way to terminate pregnancy or the safest way (for the woman) to do so. If technological advances were to allow us to carry a full pregnancy to term in an artificial womb, then instead of abortions we'd just "transfer" the fetus to that womb or even call that "birth" and then "subsequent medical treatment".

XogGyux wrote:One day, there might be a way to safely/efficiently/and economically remove the embryo/fetus and incubate it outside of a pregnant woman. Once that day arrives, then we will have to answer your personhood question and have to come to terms with the decision of whether all those embryos/fetuses need to be protected and/or if a subset of them can be discarded.
At this point in time, all of that is irrelevant because the incubator is a human being and the incubator can decline to be an incubator and we should respect that.


Even if she wants to abort a 37-week fetus?

No, we shouldn't respect everything she wants. If as you said there was a way to transfer the fetus outside the woman without killing it, we would do so even if the woman wanted to abort it for whatever reason. Why? Because even if it's not a person, we are aware that it's a living thing even if it's not a person but more like a cat.

XogGyux wrote:That is not a decision. If anything, that would be an assessment.


An assessment is to determine the fetus has a good chance of surviving outside the womb and subsequently being discharged. A decision is to terminate the pregnancy while doing everything possible to this is indeed what happens regardless of the mother's wishes.

XogGyux wrote:For 999/1000 times, just being out of the mother's body is enough. The umbilical cord only comes into place if you were going to do something to the fetus that could potentially affect the mother through the cord. Aside from electricity, I cannot think of many other things capable of affecting the mother although perhaps there are.
Practically speaking, just being born individualizes the mother/fetus situation. If we are talking about absolutes and/or more unlikely scenarios, then cutting the cord would be the last thing to do.


Sorry but you were the one being super absolutist before. I can do the same.

XogGyux wrote:That does nothing to address the problem. Only hides your motives behind fancy rules. Those "metrics" that you mention are arbitrary, which means whoever is choosing them can come up with whatever numbers they want to help them achieve what their moral/political/etc views are.
Also, this would not be a universal or national standard. Keep in mind, your local community hospital is not going to have the obstetric/gynecological and neonatology services to match industry-leading, top-performing/ranking MAYO clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Brigham Hospital, etc.


Guidelines can be based on gestational age. It's not outrageous, at all.

I'd also not say the last one is arbitrary. It literally says the fetus has at least as a good chance of surviving and being discharged as if labor started naturally. How is this arbitrary, when inducing birth would match naturally-started birth as closely as possible?

XogGyux wrote:And you think that would be reasonable? To have an angry mob of people that have nothing better to do but to sue poor women for having abortions and force them to spend their time/money in court so that a doctor can go on the stand and testify that a 24w newborn would have about a coinflip chances of survival with the best medical care available and doing so would still come with about a coinflip chances of having a life-long disability such as lung/heart/brain problems?


For the judge? I don't know, but my point is that he may decide that this situation doesn't match the intent of Roe v Wade's viability standard.

If you read the ruling, you'll see that it doesn't really elaborate much on the issue as to why is viability chosen as the cutoff. Were the medical community as a whole to become more demanding, like you are, when defining "viability" (considering not merely survival but, as you have implied, being able to live a normal life afterwards) I'd expect courts to follow.

XogGyux wrote:Again, you are assuming that abortion would even be an option. You'd have to evaluate a case-by-case scenario including the motivations and/or need for an abortion. If the reason is "baby does not have brain" that decision was already made for you. I am not an OBGYN and I don't know if there is the possibility of administering a med that would essentially kill the fetus prior to delivery to ensure a stillbirth, that could be desirable from a palliative point of view but again, this very specific scenario is something that lies outside of my knowledge.
To be honest, if a woman at 37w shows up with a perfectly healthy pregnancy and request and abortion, chances are she will be seen by the psychiatrist :lol: :knife: .


She may indeed be seen by a psychiatrist and if the call was that she's competent I'm guessing the request would just be denied as unethical.

XogGyux wrote:I don't choose to link it. It is linked. It is linked by natural processes, there was no choice.


Not in the 37-week case.

XogGyux wrote:I would protect all fetuses, so long they don't come into conflict with maternal body autonomy.


So you'd then decide that induced birth is just a better option if the fetus has a good chance of surviving and being discharged afterwards, right?

XogGyux wrote:Probably about same I'd reckon, I don't have the statistics, don't even think statistics on "37-week-old abortions" even exists.


XogGyux wrote:You think people should only care for children?
I care for dogs as well just FYI.
I don't have a problem treating a fetus and a newborn the same except in cases were the fetus come into conflict with parental body autonomy (newborn cannot, see above birth/umbilical cord conversation).


i.e. because the facts in this case allow you to conclude that the woman can terminate pregnancy without killing the fetus. Chances are most if not all docs would conclude the same.

So you're basically treating the fetus as a person here. Do you realize it?

XogGyux wrote:And that is an excuse to terminate the pregnancy?
What if the pregnant woman discovers her husband cheated on her and now she wants an abortion because "the pregnancy is a constant reminder of how it came to pass"?

If you gonna base your rules around the premise that "fetuses are people and people should be protected from being killed off", rape is not a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

I'd agree that this would be barbaric to force a woman to have said pregnancy, then again I'd think it would also be barbaric to force a woman to have any other unwanted pregnancy.


Did you see the suicide attempts stat among rape victims I posted?

13% of them seemingly survived a suicide attempt, possibly 1% died based on a paper on the CFR of suicide attempts. What makes you believe pregnancy wouldn't make these probabilities greater?
#15230414
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Don't worry. I am willing to overlook your inconsistency because of your emotional involvement in this argument.

Let me know if you want to explain where I am wrong.


Your first error about my position is that you incorrectly think I do not assume the fetus is a person.

The fetus’s personhood is irrelevant. That has always been my position.

Secondly, the rape exception is not an example of the unassailable right to life, since you guys are throwing the right to life under the proverbial bus.

Thirdly, you seem to agree that the unborn child is punished for the sins if the rapist. You quibble about who is doing the punishing,

————————

@wat0n

Since you are not willing to clarify your weird leading questions, I am not going to answer the question.

Your suicide thing seems irrelevant.

None of this contradicts my point that the rape exception implies that banning abortion is a way if punishing the pregnant person for having sex.
#15230423
How about removing all restrictions against abortion and treating as a public health matter?

Nothing much would change, other than women and girls would be able to have their pregnancies terminated safely by a competent practitioner.

At least ,what might change is more early pregnancies would be terminated and fewer mid term abortions, as the woman concerned would have no obstacles to overcome, but the numbers of late term abortions would remain largely unchanged.

Late term abortions are rare, not because of the law but because they’re not wanted and are always a personal tragedy for the woman and her family.

I don’t believe it’s my business to approve of this or that situation. If the woman has decided she doesn’t want her pregnancy to end in a live birth, then that’s her business and not the business of anyone else other than her doctors and family, that’s if she chooses to involve her family in her decision.

Years ago I used to watch a programme on telly about doctors on training. Two would be surgeons volunteered to observe a late term abortion carried out. We, the viewers, didn't see the abortion, but we could see the faces of the junior doctors who were obviously deeply distressed. As he worked, the surgeon kept up a gentle conversation. He explained his patient was a 12 year old girl who had been made pregnant by her 19 year old brother, who, on his release from prison, went to her room every night to have sex with her.

The mother of the pair had no idea what was happening and the pregnancy wasn’t discovered until very late.

As he was talking we saw the expressions of the junior doctors change slowly from distress to compassion.

I knew how they were feeling, because I was feeling the same.

I think that 12 year old had suffered enough. I only hope she was able to put it behind her and get on with her life.

Usually, a very late term abortion means killing the foetus in utero, then delivering it, because its the safest way. Sometimes killing it, then chopping it up and bringing it out in bits is better for the woman or girl concerned. It’s not done very often because of the danger of piercing the uterus. Not many surgeons are able to do it, simply because it’s such a rare procedure and they don’t get the experience needed.

Intact dilation and curettage is much safer, but it’s illegal in the USA. I’m not sure why.
#15230429
@Pants-of-dog no, my question is quite clear. Should a 37-week old pregnant have an abortion if she wants one and is competent enough to sign an informed consent to that effect?

Pure and simple. I don't care if you think it's rare for 37-week pregnant women to request an abortion. I don't care if you think she's crazy or immoral just for wanting one. Her motivations are completely irrelevant, what matters is if she should get the right to get that request honored or not.
#15230430
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog no, my question is quite clear. Should a 37-week old pregnant have an abortion if she wants one and is competent enough to sign an informed consent to that effect?


This seems like another leading question.

Pure and simple. I don't care if you think it's rare for 37-week pregnant women to request an abortion. I don't care if you think she's crazy or immoral just for wanting one. Her motivations are completely irrelevant, what matters is if she should get the right to get that request honored or not.


None of this contradicts my point that the rape exception implies that banning abortion is a way of punishing the pregnant person for having sex.
#15230433
@Pants-of-dog the rape exception is separate and you have yet to show how is pregnancy punishment.

Why is it so hard to answer the question? You're the one saying personhood doesn't matter.
#15230438
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog the rape exception is separate and you have yet to show how is pregnancy punishment.


Again, if there us a rape exception, that means that the right to life is subordinate to making the person responsible for the pregnancy deal with the consequences.

This means that forcing a pregnant person to carry a child to term is considered a fair way to force someone to deal with the consequences of sex.

Why is it so hard to answer the question? You're the one saying personhood doesn't matter.


Because it is unclear.

Since you deliberately refused to clarify it, I am assuming that it is deliberately unclear. This suggest that you are arguing in bad faith and simply want to score points in a debate.

This implies a lack of compassion for unborn children and pregnant people. They are just tokens in an Internet game you are playing with me.

I disagree. I think these are real lives that will actually end in pain and sorrow because of this court opinion.

If you want to merely score points on an Internet debate, please stick to unimportant questions like: is a hot dog a sandwich? How many holes does a drinking straw have?
#15230445
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, if there us a rape exception, that means that the right to life is subordinate to making the person responsible for the pregnancy deal with the consequences.

This means that forcing a pregnant person to carry a child to term is considered a fair way to force someone to deal with the consequences of sex.


A rape victim is 13+ times more likely to attempt suicide and as such there's an obvious case to make that the pregnancy can make suicide attempts (and success) more likely to happen than if pregnancy was the result of consensual sex. As such, the pregnancy arising from rape is actually an injury, and one that clearly can end with the woman killed or gravely injured. She just needs to use a firearm, the case fatality rate of suicide attempts using those is over 80%. Normally we'd allow abortion if pregnancy represented a substantial risk to the mother's life, don't see why wouldn't one caused by rape count.

This also goes beyond the feelings of the usual snowflakes who are all whining but no acting.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it is unclear.

Since you deliberately refused to clarify it, I am assuming that it is deliberately unclear. This suggest that you are arguing in bad faith and simply want to score points in a debate.

This implies a lack of compassion for unborn children and pregnant people. They are just tokens in an Internet game you are playing with me.

I disagree. I think these are real lives that will actually end in pain and sorrow because of this court opinion.

If you want to merely score points on an Internet debate, please stick to unimportant questions like: is a hot dog a sandwich? How many holes does a drinking straw have?


The question is not unclear, on the contrary, it's very clear if anything: Would you honor a woman's request to an abortion at the 37th week of pregnancy regardless of her reason? Pure and simple. Will you answer the question? You are free to qualify your response as you desire.

Actual bad faith is to pretend the question is hard to understand.
  • 1
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 55

@Rancid Do you still have all that kiddie porn on[…]

Why does America Suck at Everything?

@wat0n Do you understand how your claim is ill[…]

@wat0n I assume that you will not provide the […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I saw one of his videos a few weeks ago. Very w[…]