End of Roe Vs Wade?

[annabenedetti]

Now you're equivocating. I made it clear above what I was talking about.

Again, abortion can be used to mean either "the intentional killing of the baby in the womb" (where what's being aborted is the life of the baby) or it can mean "the ending of the pregnancy" (where what's being aborted is the process of the woman's pregnancy, not the baby's life).

I am talking about the latter.

By asking me if I would allow for exceptions in an abortion law for the health of the mother, you are referring to the former.

My answer has not changed. The answer to your question is still NO.



Wrong. A doctor removing the baby from the mother to save her life is not an abortion of the baby's life, but an abortion of the pregnancy process.

If there was no baby involved, then there would be no need for the distinction, Anna, and most people assume they are the same thing. But since there IS a baby involved, it means, especially since I made the distinction earlier, that it's INCREDIBLY DISHONEST of you to ask me such a question as if they DO mean the same thing.



If ANY law ends with "and then you can (intentionally) kill the baby," it is inherently immoral, and legitimizes murder of children.

JR, legally, if you are aborting the baby to save the life of the mother, you are aborting the baby. Even if you're using the principle of double effect, that is, you're taking an action (saving the life of the mother) without the intent to do harm (aborting the baby), the fact remains that even without the intention to kill the baby, the baby will be killed to save the life of the mother. If left unremoved, the baby will die regardless, and in the process may kill the mother.

Your intent is good. The outcome is the same, and it needs to be spelled out in the law.

Pastor Enyart often stated that even if Roe was overturned (as it now has been), abortion would still be legal because of laws put into place by RE-publican politicians and the "pro-life" movement.

This isn't relevant to our current discussion. We already know what happens when it goes back to the states.

 

[annabenedetti]

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines​

Also, this is draconian. Republicans may regret it.

 

[User Name]

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines​

Also, this is draconian. Republicans may regret it.

And yet Elon Musk is the latest hero of MAGA nation:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541881113446010880

 

[TomO]

And yet Elon Musk is the latest hero of MAGA nation:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541881113446010880

Smart business move....Gotta be cheaper than paying maternity leave and the huge insurance liabilities.

 

[TomO]

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines​

Also, this is draconian. Republicans may regret it.

Isn't it ironic that regulating interstate commerce is something that they are "SUPPOSED" to be doing?!?!

It's just so ridiculous.​

 

[Right Divider]

Smart business move....Gotta be cheaper than paying maternity leave and the huge insurance liabilities.

This is the problem when people put money over morals.

 

[musterion]

Smart business move....Gotta be cheaper than paying maternity leave and the huge insurance liabilities.

And that is the absolute extent of their interest in it...which option will cost the company less?

 

[JudgeRightly]

JR, legally, if you are aborting the baby to save the life of the mother, you are aborting the baby.

Only if your intent is to kill the baby.

Otherwise, you only terminate the pregnancy, not the baby's life.

This crucial difference is what determines whether the procedure is moral or immoral.

Even if you're using the principle of double effect, that is, you're taking an action (saving the life of the mother) without the intent to do harm (aborting the baby), the fact remains that even without the intention to kill the baby, the baby will be killed to save the life of the mother.

Again, the difference is intent.

The goal is to save the mother and the baby if possible. If that means that while trying to save the mother the baby dies because there is nothing you can do to save the baby, the mother lives, then you have saved one life, and it's a tragedy that the other did not survive. If the baby somehow lives (not likely, of course), then you'll have saved two lives. Removing the baby will cause the baby to die, but the intent is not to kill the baby, but to solve the problem the mother is having, that being that a baby is growing in her fallopian tube.

However:

If your intent is to save the mother by intentionally killing the baby, it's murder.

That's a HUGE difference.

If left unremoved, the baby will die regardless, and in the process may kill the mother.

Correct.

Your intent is good. The outcome is the same, and it needs to be spelled out in the law.

No.

All the law has to do is recognize the personhood of the child in the womb from conception, and that intentionally killing that child is murder, and therefore illegal, which would outlaw abortion (the act of killing the child in the womb) completely, while still allowing, though not explicitly stated (for which there's no need to), for the baby to be removed (not intentionally killed) if necessary in tubal ectopic pregnancies.

 

[annabenedetti]

Otherwise, you only terminate the pregnancy, not the baby's life.

Terminating the pregnancy = terminating the baby's life.

This crucial difference is what determines whether the procedure is moral or immoral.

Again, the difference is intent.

The goal is to save the mother and the baby if possible. If that means that while trying to save the mother the baby dies because there is nothing you can do to save the baby, the mother lives, then you have saved one life, and it's a tragedy that the other did not survive. If the baby somehow lives (not likely, of course), then you'll have saved two lives. Removing the baby will cause the baby to die, but the intent is not to kill the baby, but to solve the problem the mother is having, that being that a baby is growing in her fallopian tube.

You just restated what I said, as if I'd never said it.

Even if you're using the principle of double effect, that is, you're taking an action (saving the life of the mother) without the intent to do harm (aborting the baby), the fact remains that even without the intention to kill the baby, the baby will be killed to save the life of the mother. If left unremoved, the baby will die regardless, and in the process may kill the mother.

If your intent is to save the mother by intentionally killing the baby, it's murder.

That's a HUGE difference.

Correct.

No.

All the law has to do is recognize the personhood of the child in the womb from conception, and that intentionally killing that child is murder, and therefore illegal, which would outlaw abortion (the act of killing the child in the womb) completely, while still allowing, though not explicitly stated (for which there's no need to), for the baby to be removed (not intentionally killed) if necessary in tubal ectopic pregnancies.

No, in your scenario the law has to allow for the termination of the pregnancy/termination of the life of the baby in order to save the mother. Without that legal exception, the doctor cannot terminate the pregnancy/terminate the life of the baby before the tube bursts and jeopardizes the life of the mother.

You have to have that legal exception, you cannot have a law with no exceptions. You are literally making an exception here. Intent recognizes that the mother's life is being saved at the expense of the baby's life, and goes ahead with saving the mother's life, knowing that the intent was not to harm the baby but the baby will be harmed anyway. A termination of a pregnancy is, by definition, an abortion. You are allowing an exception to an abortion law.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Terminating the pregnancy = terminating the baby's life.

Removing the baby from the woman's body will end the baby's life, but it's not murder unless you intentionally kill the baby.

Letting a dying person die =/= killing a dying person

That's the point I'm trying to make, Anna.

No, in your scenario the law has to allow for the termination of the pregnancy/termination of the life of the baby in order to save the mother.

Now you're moving the goalposts.

Currently, in an abortion procedure, the murderer intentionally kills the baby.

I want to outlaw the intentional killing of the baby.

Removing baby from mom results in the death of the baby, but it's not intentionally killing the baby.

The train coupler example I gave before explains why. The train company didn't commit murder by removing the connector knuckles from the man caught between them.

In the same way, removing the baby from the mother's body to prevent mom from dying because of her baby's location is not murder. It's a tragedy that the baby will die because we don't have the technology to save him, but it's not murder to let the baby die, since the goal was always to SAVE at least one life.

Without that legal exception, the doctor cannot terminate the pregnancy/terminate the life of the baby before the tube bursts and jeopardizes the life of the mother.

Supra. Yes, he can, without any exception in the law.

You have to have that legal exception,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

you cannot have a law with no exceptions.

Yes, you can.

God said "do not murder." He did not provide exceptions.

God said put the murderer to death. He did not provide exceptions, and EXPLICITLY STATED that the judge should not show mercy "nor shall your eye pity," life shall be for life.

You are literally making an exception here.

No.

Intent recognizes that the mother's life is being saved at the expense of the baby's life, and goes ahead with saving the mother's life, knowing that the intent was not to harm the baby but the baby will be harmed anyway.

That's not my point of contention, nor does ANY of this justify murdering the child.

My point of contention is that there's no reason to intentionally kill the baby when or after removing him from the mother's body. As in using chemicals to kill the baby, or in using a vacuum to tear the limbs off the baby, or driving forceps up into the back of the baby's skull.

My point of contention is the MURDER of the child, not that the child will die as a result of removal.

A termination of a pregnancy is, by definition, an abortion.

Abort means to end.

Yes, by definition, terminating the pregnancy is an "abortion."

But that's not what is meant by the current laws of the US, which refers to the intentional killing of a child for any given reason.

You are allowing an exception to an abortion law.

Abortions performed by companies such as Planned Parenthood are murders. It's the MURDER I want banned, no exceptions.

 

[TomO]

I have to say this conversation amuses me greatly...Like some other issues, I have been fussing about with people on the subject for some time. Even on the other side of the debate at one time; believe it or not...But I digress.

The thing that amuses me....And it's not just here...Was for the longest time (35 of the last 40 years at least) ectopic "pregnancies" were not even considered a pregnancy because the fertilized egg was going to have no chance to develop into a fetus. There was never a point of viability. Ending an ectopic pregnancy was not considered an "abortion" because....Well, see above.

Attempts to bring this "threatens the life of the mother" into it were known to be code words for "threatens her mental outlook or financial future". Not real ectopic pregnancies.

Now all are focusing on this....The real threatens the life of the mother.

They are arguing about it from what I see from ignorance since there is no abortion law to my knowledge which doesn't exclude these sorts of medical emergencies. The people who seem to be stirring up the questions and concerns mostly are the doctors themselves.

This does not surprise me...Engineers today are largely idiots as well...I weep for our infrastructure.


TBH I haven't seen a real fruitful discussion on this topic in years.

 

[musterion]

Removing the baby from the woman's body will end the baby's life, but it's not murder unless you intentionally kill the baby.

The whole point of removing the baby is to kill it.

That is murder.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The whole point of removing the baby is to kill it.

This is why intent matters.

That is murder.

If the intent is to kill the baby, then yes, it is murder.

But if the goal is to save mom and the baby if possible, then it's not murder.

Again, letting a dying person die is NOT murder. Intentionally killing a dying person is murder.

If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional, unavoidable, and accidental death is not the same as intentional killing.

Life of the Mother "Exception" | American Right to Life

An "exception" means a child intentionally killed. A physician should never postpone his efforts to save the mother in order to take time out to kill the child. If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional...

americanrtl.org

 

[musterion]

I don't argue with leftists.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't argue with leftists.

I'm not a leftist.

 

[Jefferson]

Let's let an OBGYN say her piece:

 

[Jefferson]

Native Americans Tell Democrats to Back Off on Building Their Abortion Mills on Tribal Lands

 

[JudgeRightly]

Native Americans Tell Democrats to Back Off on Building Their Abortion Mills on Tribal Lands

Talk about targeting minorities...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Needs are not rights.



Agreed. Parents should be responsible and care for their children.



"he's"



The child has the right to life from conception to death by old age.

He does not have a right, at any time, to the things you keep calling "essentials."

WhY?



How often do you think this would be a problem, Arty, if parents are deterred from neglecting their child to the point of death if the punishment for doing so was execution?

One a day? A month? A year?

I'd say less than once in a generation, because that's how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent.

Parents would not, repeat, WOULD NOT neglect their children to the point of death, if the punishment for doing so was their own life being taken from them.



Yes, that's what socialist programs like welfare checks do.



I do, because they didn't earn my money, and neither did the child.



If a child is being mistreated, then the one doing the mistreating needs to be punished. Not given aid. And it's the one doing the mistreating, not the rest of society.



The government doesn't have the right to be Robin Hood.

If I want to give my money directly to a family in need, that's my prerogative.

The government, however, does not have the right to take my money and give it to the same family, because that's theft, because I am not a willing participant in the giving.



Appeal to the stone.



Yes, I do. Generally speaking, men have higher sex drives than women.

I know, because I'm a guy.



I literally quoted you doing it.



Never claimed to be otherwise.



Never claimed to be.

Food, water, shelter are essentials to life so of course children should have the right to those and lawfully they do. That you would deprive them of any rights has already said it all.

Men do not - "generally speaking" have sex drives higher than women. What on earth is the "I know, because I'm a guy" have to do with anything?! So am I. And?

You quoted me doing no such thing.

 

[ok doser]

More stupid

Extra points if you can identify the clip at the very end and the two actors