Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

Exactly, and killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

Exactly. I wonder why others have so much trouble differentiating this.

In the case of abortion, you're doing something to someone that will cause their death. Removing a pre viable fetus will cause their death.

If all attempts are made to save said fetus then it isn't murder. It is the fetus dying from complications resulting from the surgery/removal. Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

Remember?

This is not true. Explain to me how performing an abortion on a woman that is 11 weeks pregnant because she has preeclampsia in the best change at saving the fetus?

If the mother and fetus will die without action, take action. This is not a matter of choice this is a matter of necessity. The best chance of saving the fetus in this case may be removing it.

This is not true. Explain to me how performing an abortion on a woman that is 11 weeks pregnant because she has preeclampsia in the best change at saving the fetus?

It wouldn't be, in that case. Did you notice that qualifier? That's why I said "in this case may be". For you to then say "not always true" shows that you'll ignore what I've written to make a strained point about extreme cases.

And to bring up Pre-eclampsia in the first place shows how far you're willing to stretch and/or are not familiar with this complication.

Pre-eclampsia may develop at any time after 20 weeks of gestation. Pre-eclampsia before 32 weeks is considered early onset, and is associated with increased morbidity. Its progress differs among patients; most cases are diagnosed before labor typically would begin.

After 20 weeks and prior to 32 weeks is still considered early onset. :think:

Even if it dies you're giving it (and the mother) a chance by intervening in a situation that would otherwise result in both of them dying.

Not always true. “In other situations we were able to save the child though we lost the mother immediately after the delivery, for example by keeping her alive with a terminal brain tumour. Sometimes the woman’s partner declares that they feel unable to raise the child in case the mother would not survive her cancer and termination of pregnancy is opted for.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-treated-for-cancer-without-harming-baby.html

Guess what killed the mother in your example? A terminal brain tumor. Having an abortion will not cure a terminal brain tumor. And, did you read the headline of the article you quoted?

"Pregnant women can be treated for cancer 'without harming baby'
Pregnant women who develop cancer do not have to abort their baby, delay their own treatment or give birth prematurely as chemotherapy does not harm the child, a collection of studies has found."

Why you feel this is an argument for abortion I am unsure. Thanks for the article though! :e4e:

How? You still performed a surgery to cause the death of an innocent person.

Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

The surgery should never be carried out with the intent of killing the innocent person.

:idea: Are you actually conceding that a fetus is a person, or are you simply being disingenuous?

So the doctors that refused to perform the surgery and instead allowed the girl to remain paralyzed made the right decision?

Let's be clear. Her suicide attempt is what caused her paralysis not the doctors action or inaction. They later did perform the surgery and she's still paralyzed. There was no guarantee that earlier surgery would have cured that.

Actions have consequences. To blame her paralysis on abortion law is twisting the facts in favor of your bias.

When is the risk high enough for the woman to be able to have an abortion?

If there is just a 50% chance that she will die? 90%?

Treat both patients equally. Take action when both patients have the best chance of survival.

How long do they have to wait until they can perform an abortion?

Remove the fetus once viable and make all attempts to save both lives.

Again, why is the fact that the mother will die relevant? Why do you get to murder an innocent person to save your own life?

You don't get to. Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

While the fetus may not die without an abortion, they will most certainly die if you perform one.

Then don't perform one.

All abortions unless spontaneous are elective. You elected to have it done. You could have elected not to.

Unless you're disputing the common usage, you don't know what elective abortion means.

Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.[11][12] An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons.

So abortions performed to save the mothers life are wrong?

It depends on how you define "abortion". If by abortion you mean ending the pregnancy by intentionally killing the fetus then yes, that is "wrong".

If by abortion you mean, removing the fetus (ending the pregnancy) where all efforts can be made to save the life of both then no, that is not "wrong".

If the fetus would die alongside the mother, action should be taken in an attempt to save one or both lives. I cannot be anymore clear on this point.

Someone being terminally ill is irrelevant in making the decision to kill them.

I agree and you're only helping to make my point. Don't kill them due only to medical emergency.

You are effectively arguing against abortion here. Just because the fetus is facing dire prospects doesn't mean you kill them.

No, we are discussing how you would like to see the legal system punish people that have abortions. I think I've stated this.

And I've answered.

So is it acceptable to make it a lesser offense to killing black people compared to white people? What about males compared to females? People over 50 compared to people under?

:doh: Of course not.

Once again, I've looked at existing laws that recognize the unborn as legal persons. I would like to extend those laws to recognize them as persons so that they have legal recourse against elective abortion.

Again Fetal Homicide Laws

I am looking to take an already existing legal framework and extend it to combat abortion.

The inconsistency you see is exactly why I feel that logically, these should be extended. You cannot say (let's take Alabama for example) that (the state) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability

-but then-

"and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal."

Simply to appease the pro-choice conglomerate. Either a unborn is a legal person or it is not. They say it is both a person and not a person depending on the circumstance of who wants to kill it.

I didn't pull feticide out of a hat.

Why should age be a determining factor?

That a woman aborted is a circumstance as opposed to planning and carrying out a murder against her husband. Legally, these circumstances would weigh on a judge or jury's decision.

Again, feticide is my middle ground not my ideal. To me, it's murder.

So you don't simply want to end abortion, you also want to punish the people that have them.

If abortion was illegal then there would be repercussions for breaking laws against abortion. I wouldn't want someone involved in abortion to break a law and not be punished.

Otherwise, what's the point in having a law?

How did she become pregnant? Having sex should limit woman's right to have an abortion as she is directly responsible for the action that resulted in her pregnancy.
Actions have consequences.

So women that are raped should have an unlimited right to an abortion?

No, of course not. What you've done there is called an argument from silence. My addressing consensual sex says nothing about my position with pregnancy resulting from non-consensual sex. I don't think abortion should be legal. Period.

You know this and are being disingenuous again. Rape is tragic. If she doesn't want to keep the baby she should look into adoption. It's not the babies fault that the mother was raped.

I never said that you couldn't account for circumstances. I even asked you what those circumstances would be and how they should effect the sentence. Robbery is much more broad then abortion and yet I was still able to account for circumstances and give you an answer.

And I answered you. Otherwise, you don't understand the point being made in my signature. Each state should decide.

That's the point of the quote. Let each state decide.

How is asking you questions trying to pigeonhole you? I was trying to see what your take on the severity of abortion was and what you thought of women that had them.

You're looking for a simplistic one-size-fits-all sentence for those involved in abortion. I offered an example of a woman charged with feticide and she was facing 6-20 years. I said that sounded fair depending on her prior criminal record of the other circumstances of the case. I know people commit murder and plea to manslaughter and are sentenced to 3 years.

There is no simplistic single answer.

This is my first time encountering pro lifers who openly admitted that women that have abortions should be imprisoned and I wanted to know what you think they deserve.

You haven't thought this through, clearly. If pro-lifers are such because they want abortion criminalized then of course those guilty of breaking said laws should go to prison!

It goes without saying.

Have you encountered pro-lifers in the past who suggested community service? What did the other pro-lifers you've encountered recommend if not imprisonment?

Would it be hard for you to decide what sentence both mother and hitman should receive?

Both should receive the same sentence? Is a mother as likely to kill again as a hitman? Circumstances matter. Character of the defendant matters.

Forced pregnancy is harmful in and of itself.

You must be referring to rape because no one forced her to get pregnant, just to live with the outcome of her actions rather than irresponsibly causing another to die because she isn't mature or responsible enough to do so.

And if she's not, society has a solution. Adoption.

The OP was asking if abortion should be panned after a certain time. That is essentially asking if late term/partial birth abortion should be illegal even if using different words.

OK. Maybe it really just meant to discover what it asked. Given the variety of votes, it seems that is just a small piece of the puzzle. Given the poll, it does seem that even most pro-choicers can see the detriment of allowing partial birth abortions.

Even you have that point. For you, it's after birth. Everyone believes that killing a newborn is wrong and should be illegal. But, prior to birth, pro-choicers differ on when it should no longer be legal to kill that same being.

Killing a newborn isn't an abortion.

I never said it was. I said everyone has a point when they would want that being to be legally protected.

Newborns are living humans

So is a fetus

that aren't infringing on your rights in anyway.

What right is a fetus infringing on?

Choosing to give birth and keep custody of the newborn means you are obligated to care for said newborn unless you decide to give them up for adoption.

And I feel that choosing to have sex and get pregnant means you are obligated to care for the baby growing inside of you.

I don't know why and don't care. My point was that laws surrounding partial birth abortion haven't caused a huge decline in them.

But overall, if they are illegal will they decline? The Canada example doesn't offer data since doctors do not perform them even if they legally can.

So, if there were no restriction on abortion in the United States whatsoever, there would not be more late-term abortions? That is your argument?

It wouldn't go up meaningfully higher no. I'd wager that it wouldn't even double.

Then we agree that they would increase.

This is of course accounting for ones that aren't done for extenuating circumstances. My argument was that late term abortions are even less then rape/health of mother abortions so if you're going to complain on pro choicers harping on those, pro lifers shouldn't harp on late term abortions. Like I said in the bottom part of the post that originally got us on this conversation:

That was what started the thread, actually; where will the pro-choicers draw the line and declare that all abortion after X should be illegal.

And you make another good point. Rape/health of the mother abortions are rare indeed. Why do you try to justify all others because of the extreme cases? :think:

Bringing up brain tumors, pre-eclampsia and pregnant rape victims paralyzed due to a suicide attempt shows that you are not comfortable rationalizing or otherwise attempting to justify what the majority of abortions are.

They're not those. Why would rare exceptions determine the rule? There are exceptions to all rules. That doesn't mean discard the rules altogether as you advocate here.

 

[gcthomas]

Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

The surgery should never be carried out with the intent of killing the innocent person.

In the England, acts of omission count the same as acts of aggression when it comes to murder. So carrying out an act that you know will likely result in a serious risk of injury or death is no different from intentionally killing. Both are murder. For example, if i decide to not throw the flotation device to a drowning man, then I effectively killed him. Allowing someone to die when you could easily save them is murder.

Also, prematurely killing someone who is dying is also murder - such acts must be left to the courts to instigate. You can't go around knocking off elderly cancer sufferers, for example.

I don't understand why so many Christians think it is OK cause a death by act of omission - the thought horrifies me that they can contemplate such things.

 

[WizardofOz]

When you assumed granite believed abortion at a certain point should be illegal, though he never stated that

Quote or post #?

#283

I made no such assumption. We were mostly debating semantics. Directly quote my assumption.

What was said:

As I have said--before--I believe personhood is recognizable and undeniable when brain waves/heart beat are first detected. (I actually said this on your personhood thread. Did you not even check there?)

I will take this there as well but you've put markers on your position. A heartbeat is detectable by 3 week and brain waves by 7 weeks.

Therefore, either you feel all elective abortion should be illegal after 7 weeks or your personhood distinction is a red herring and has nothing at all to do with your argument about the legality of elective abortion. :think:

He was either bringing up heartbeat and brain waves because he felt those with such physical characteristics should be protected or it was a red herring.

And, Granite has been here for some time. He generally opposes abortion (thinks they should be illegal) but we were discussing his exceptions.

So, I made no assumption but to say he feels some should be illegal isn't an assumption at all even if I had said that, which I didn't.

Granite - do you feel abortion at a certain point should be illegal? Please remind us of your position.

I'll do some searching in lieu of his response to the above.

EDIT:

When pro-lifers exaggerate, embellish, and outright lie about Planned Parenthood, we shoot ourselves in the foot and lose a tremendous amount of credibility in the eyes of people who know better firsthand.

I recalled enough of Granite's past comments on abortion to know he feels some should be illegal.

He is free to correct me if I am wrong but I made no such assumption in post 283 in the first place, either way.

But he never expressely said that he was pitting the blastocyst against the life of the fully formed human.

He didn't need to. That was his position. When he says repeatedly "Rather I'm disputing the de facto assumption/implication that a human blastocyst is morally equal to that of fully developed humans."

A human blastocyst need not be considered a moral equal to that of fully developed humans. It's a false dilemma. He was "pitting" the life of the blastocyst against the life of a fully developed human when that wasn't my "de facto assumption/implication" at all.

Here's quip clearly making the assumption i.e. "de facto" when this was never my argument nor did it ever need to be.

and when you insisted that PureX must want to force his position of late term abortions on others.

I never said that. Quote me.

If he feels certain abortions should be illegal (evidence by his vote despite later comments that are contrary to his vote) then yes, that position will be forced on others.

He changed his position from how he voted and thereby clarified the confusion on the issue.

I am noticing that you're not directly quoting me of what you're accusing me of but rather lazily referencing to ambiguous points that you would like to declare is me making unfounded assumptions and/or putting words into people's mouth.

Either directly quote me doing so or I'm done playing this tit for tat game with you.

You've argued that if they don't believe

So your signature is misleading then, no?

How is it misleading? :idunno:

The quote is not mine. It is Ron Paul's quote. When I said "there is a difference between ardently supporting a murder charge for all involved in abortion and my position" it is because I was arguing in favor of feticide laws being enforced for abortion. That doesn't mean I disagree with Ron Paul's quote.

He is really just stating facts. What is there to disagree with?

And were you being dishonest when you said:

I don't see it that way. Those opposed to abortion feel strongly that it is immoral and a travesty akin to murder. They want it to be against the law because they feel strongly about how wrong it is. It isn't about judging sex or women, it is about saving innocent lives.

How is this dishonest? Your reading comprehension is in serious doubt. Take care when reading what I've written. I try hard to be as precise as possible.

"Those opposed to abortion feel strongly that it is immoral and a travesty akin to murder." - Moral opinion

"They want it to be against the law because they feel strongly about how wrong it is." - Legal opinion

Notice the legal opinion is that they want it to be illegal not necessarily a murder charge as this would vary in each individual pro-life individual. However, all pro-life individuals would likely agree that abortion should be illegal. That's what makes them pro-life :duh:

How am I putting word in your mouth when you've posted things that would lead me to believe you feel that way.

You should ask for clarification if you're not sure or if I have been in any way unclear rather than making assumptions about things I have not said. :e4e:

 

[WizardofOz]

In the England, acts of omission count the same as acts of aggression when it comes to murder. So carrying out an act that you know will likely result in a serious risk of injury or death is no different from intentionally killing. Both are murder. For example, if i decide to not throw the flotation device to a drowning man, then I effectively killed him. Allowing someone to die when you could easily save them is murder.

Also, prematurely killing someone who is dying is also murder - such acts must be left to the courts to instigate. You can't go around knocking off elderly cancer sufferers, for example.

I don't understand why so many Christians think it is OK cause a death by act of omission - the thought horrifies me that they can contemplate such things.

You'll have to explain how the above relates to this thread or the specific post of mine that you quoted. If a doctor refuses to kill a fetus he should be charged with a crime?

Is that your argument?

 

[gcthomas]

You'll have to explain how the above relates to this thread or the specific post of mine that you quoted. If a doctor refuses to kill a fetus he should be charged with a crime?

Is that your argument?

You wrote "If all attempts are made to save said fetus then it isn't murder. It is the fetus dying from complications resulting from the surgery/removal. Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally."

If killing a foetus is murder, then removing it when it is not viable, and then going through the charade of trying to 'save' it from its inevitable death, is still murder. The act has killed it, and the death was forseeable and avoidable. Murder, if you consider the foetus a person.

It seems an obvious link to the discussion to me. I'm surprised you couldn't see the implications.

 

[WizardofOz]

You wrote "If all attempts are made to save said fetus then it isn't murder.

Correct

It is the fetus dying from complications resulting from the surgery/removal.

Right. And dying from complications resulting from surgery is not the same at all as not throwing the flotation device to a drowning man. You said "Allowing someone to die when you could easily save them is murder."

Who can easily be saved in the scenarios laid out in this thread?

Apples and oranges, gct.

Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally."

Jezebel's quote

If killing a foetus is murder, then removing it when it is not viable, and then going through the charade of trying to 'save' it from its inevitable death, is still murder.

I wouldn't remove it when it's not viable. I said this several times, actually.

Remove the fetus once viable and make all attempts to save both lives.

And, it still wouldn't be murder if the procedure was done out of medical necessity to save the mother's life. The fetus dies with the mother without intervention.

The act has killed it, and the death was forseeable and avoidable. Murder, if you consider the foetus a person.

It seems an obvious link to the discussion to me. I'm surprised you couldn't see the implications.

Quote mining can lead to confusion and misrepresentation.

If the mother is dying (in the rare, rare case in which this actually happens) then the death is not avoidable at all. The "act of omission" would result in both dying. Therefore, the law you're referencing would have nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

 

[Jezebel]

If all attempts are made to save said fetus then it isn't murder. It is the fetus dying from complications resulting from the surgery/removal. Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

Remember?

So it isn't murder if he tries to "save it"? You could easily exploit that loophole to allow for any first trimester abortion, or "removal of a fetus".

It wouldn't be, in that case. Did you notice that qualifier? That's why I said "in this case may be". For you to then say "not always true" shows that you'll ignore what I've written to make a strained point about extreme cases.

Because I was focusing on the cases where it wouldn't be, the ones you keep trying to ignore.

And to bring up Pre-eclampsia in the first place shows how far you're willing to stretch and/or are not familiar with this complication.

Pre-eclampsia may develop at any time after 20 weeks of gestation. Pre-eclampsia before 32 weeks is considered early onset, and is associated with increased morbidity. Its progress differs among patients; most cases are diagnosed before labor typically would begin.

After 20 weeks and prior to 32 weeks is still considered early onset. :think:

Sorry, I got the complications wrong.

I was thinking of a specific case that I read a while back and I was wrong. Her complication wasn't preeclampsia it was pulmonary hypertension.

"Last fall, a 27-year-old mother of four entered the hospital 11 weeks pregnant and was suffering from pulmonary hypertension.

Doctors said if her pregnancy wasn't terminated, she would likely die of heart failure - taking her unborn child with her."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-debate-hospital-stripped-catholic-status/story?id=12455295

Guess what killed the mother in your example? A terminal brain tumor. Having an abortion will not cure a terminal brain tumor.

And, did you read the headline of the article you quoted?

"Pregnant women can be treated for cancer 'without harming baby'
Pregnant women who develop cancer do not have to abort their baby, delay their own treatment or give birth prematurely as chemotherapy does not harm the child, a collection of studies has found."

Why you feel this is an argument for abortion I am unsure. Thanks for the article though! :e4e:

You missed this sentence:

“The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients. In practice, it is possible to administer chemotherapy from 14 weeks gestational age onwards with specific attention to prenatal care.”

and this one:
"
A collection of research studies published in a special edition of The Lancet medical journal has offered reassurance for women as it was found that chemotherapy treatment after the first trimester does not harm the unborn child. "

Delaying chemotherapy, even for a small amount of time, can be harmful and increase risk of death.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/
She was only 13 weeks pregnant.

Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

The surgery should never be carried out with the intent of killing the innocent person.

But can it be carried out if it will knowingly result in the death of an innocent person, even if it is meant to do something else like save the mother?

:idea: Are you actually conceding that a fetus is a person, or are you simply being disingenuous?

I'm arguing from your viewpoint of how a fetus should be treated.

I don't know if fetuses qualify as persons or not. I don't care. That's the not the reason I'm pro choice.

Let's be clear. Her suicide attempt is what caused her paralysis not the doctors action or inaction. They later did perform the surgery and she's still paralyzed. There was no guarantee that earlier surgery would have cured that.

Actions have consequences. To blame her paralysis on abortion law is twisting the facts in favor of your bias.

What caused her suicide attempt is irrelevant in deciding what to do about it. Don't deflect. It's a simple yes or no question. I'm not asking you to weigh in on what caused it. I'm asking you what the doctors should be legally allowed to do about it. Part of the reason later surgery was ineffective was because they had to wait longer to perform it.

Abortion law does play apart in her remaining paralyzed because it inhibited treatment the doctors could take to cure it. That's not twisting facts.

So, should doctors have been prohibited from operating on her spine while she was pregnant? If they did, should they have been charged with murder? Yes or no?

Treat both patients equally. Take action when both patients have the best chance of survival.

This is a vague non answer. Vague declarations like this are the reason Ireland had to reexamine their abortion law after the death of Savita H.

How do you take action when both patients have the best chance of survival when one patients chance is steadily declining as the other's is rising?

Remove the fetus once viable and make all attempts to save both lives.

But we're talking about what you do before the fetus is viable.

You don't get to. Killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.


Then don't perform one.

So doctors should not be permitted to intervene to save the mothers life pre viability if their only option is abortion?

So then you don't really support abortion to save the mothers life, correct?

Unless you're disputing the common usage, you don't know what elective abortion means.

I am in this case. If they're immoral/illegal/wrong they're always immoral/illegal/wrong and they're always elective because you can always elect to not have one.

Medically they're classed differently, but I'm talking about legally/morally.

And I've answered.

As I said before, I know you have. But why do you keep bringing up states?

:doh: Of course not.

So then giving lesser sentences can possibly say something about the value of the victim, depending on why they got a lesser sentence yes?

Once again, I've looked at existing laws that recognize the unborn as legal persons. I would like to extend those laws to recognize them as persons so that they have legal recourse against elective abortion.

Again Fetal Homicide Laws

I am looking to take an already existing legal framework and extend it to combat abortion.

The inconsistency you see is exactly why I feel that logically, these should be extended. You cannot say (let's take Alabama for example) that (the state) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability

-but then-

"and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal."

Simply to appease the pro-choice conglomerate. Either a unborn is a legal person or it is not. They say it is both a person and not a person depending on the circumstance of who wants to kill it.

Now we're back to states again when that's never what I asked you.
I already know what you would prefer as far as feticide vs murder, you answered it. I was just clearing up the original misunderstanding, and why you seem so incapable of calling for say 20+ years, or life in prison for women that have abortions.

And why you can't seem to account for circumstances.

I didn't pull feticide out of a hat.

I never said you did.

That a woman aborted is a circumstance as opposed to planning and carrying out a murder against her husband. Legally, these circumstances would weigh on a judge or jury's decision.

They would, but not to the point that fetuses are classed as a different charge altogether simply because they're younger. You arguing that a woman aborting is a different circumstance as opposed to murdering her husband is the same argument many people would make for why women that have abortions shouldn't be punished at all.

Again, feticide is my middle ground not my ideal. To me, it's murder.

How is it your middle ground when it is just as unlikely to garner support as charges for murder?

If abortion was illegal then there would be repercussions for breaking laws against abortion. I wouldn't want someone involved in abortion to break a law and not be punished.

Otherwise, what's the point in having a law?

Okay, just so we're clear that you aren't only interested in ending abortion.

No, of course not. What you've done there is called an argument from silence. My addressing consensual sex says nothing about my position with pregnancy resulting from non-consensual sex. I don't think abortion should be legal. Period. '

Rape is tragic. If she doesn't want to keep the baby she should look into adoption.

No what I've done is pointed out that discussing consensual sex is a red herring on your part and you're only doing it to make your argument easier. You don't care if the woman consented or not, so don't try to use "consent" to save face.

Even if she was completely and totally blameless, you believe she should have no right to end her pregnancy. Period.

And saying she should just look into adoption, is like saying she should just take a shower after being raped. It does nothing to mitigate a harmful, humiliating. and risky pregnancy. Nor does it change the fact that her rights to bodily autonomy were violated.

You know this and are being disingenuous again.

As are you.

It's not the babies fault that the mother was raped.

Nor is it the mothers.

And I answered you. Otherwise, you don't understand the point being made in my signature. Each state should decide.

That's the point of the quote. Let each state decide.

Then you don't understand what I was asking you, because what states would decide wasn't part of the question. Once again it was what you would decide.

You're looking for a simplistic one-size-fits-all sentence for those involved in abortion. I offered an example of a woman charged with feticide and she was facing 6-20 years. I said that sounded fair depending on her prior criminal record of the other circumstances of the case. I know people commit murder and plea to manslaughter and are sentenced to 3 years.

There is no simplistic single answer.

But I asked you what if she has no criminal record, was 4 weeks pregnant as the result of consensual sex. Let's say she purchased an abortion pill from a drug dealer.

You haven't thought this through, clearly. If pro-lifers are such because they want abortion criminalized then of course those guilty of breaking said laws should go to prison!

It goes without saying.

Have you encountered pro-lifers in the past who suggested community service? What did the other pro-lifers you've encountered recommend if not imprisonment?

You haven't spent much time with your peers in the pro life movement:
"
Punishing women on top of that would serve no purpose other than making a moral statement."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/should-women-face-prison-time-for-abortion

"Just to set the record straight, pro-lifers have never even suggested that women be jailed for having abortions,"
http://www.priestsforlife.org/lte/lte26.html

"Punish the doctor for committing an illegal procedure, but don’t punish the woman, who will often be punishing herself plenty. - See more at:"
http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/whatpunishment/#sthash.wx0n5u2K.dpuf

"Answer: No. The people who should go to jail in that case are the abortionists."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jailing-women-who-have-abortions

"Prolife legislators and pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned."
http://www.aul.org/2010/04/why-the-states-did-not-prosecute-women-for-abortion-before-roe-v-wade/

Interview with pro life protestors on imprisoning women for abortions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

Both should receive the same sentence? Is a mother as likely to kill again as a hitman? Circumstances matter. Character of the defendant matters.

Mother=person hired hitman
Abortionist=hitman

You must be referring to rape because no one forced her to get pregnant, just to live with the outcome of her actions rather than irresponsibly causing another to die because she isn't mature or responsible enough to do so.

Once again, a red herring and being disingenuous. You don't care if she was forced. So don't bring it up to make your argument easier.

And if she's not, society has a solution. Adoption.

Adoption does nothing to remedy a forced pregnancy and birth. Completely irrelevant in a discussion about abortion rights.

OK. Maybe it really just meant to discover what it asked. Given the variety of votes, it seems that is just a small piece of the puzzle. Given the poll, it does seem that even most pro-choicers can see the detriment of allowing partial birth abortions.

Which is what you think the limit on abortions should be, which is basically asking whether or not late term abortions should be legal.

Nothing you said contradicted my point.

I never said it was. I said everyone has a point when they would want that being to be legally protected.

No, the OP asked when there should be a limit on abortion.

So is a fetus

I never claimed otherwise.

What right is a fetus infringing on?

By forcing a woman to allow use of her body against her will it is infringing on her right to control over her body, and causing her bodily harm.

And I feel that choosing to have sex and get pregnant means you are obligated to care for the baby growing inside of you.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. You don't care if they chose to or not, you still don't believe they have any right to an abortion.

But overall, if they are illegal will they decline? The Canada example doesn't offer data since doctors do not perform them even if they legally can.

Depends on what exceptions you add to the rule. Of course they will decline but not by much.

You don't always need laws to reduce certain kinds of abortions, sometimes they regulate themselves like in Canada.

And you missed the part that said they're still performed, just not for non extenuating circumstances.

Then we agree that they would increase.

Yet they would still be less then all the "extenuating circumstances" combined. Which is what I originally pointed out in the first place.

That was what started the thread, actually; where will the pro-choicers draw the line and declare that all abortion after X should be illegal.

And you make another good point. Rape/health of the mother abortions are rare indeed. Why do you try to justify all others because of the extreme cases? :think:

Why does them being rare matter? Are you comfortable with those abortions being legal because they're rare? Also define rare, because something like 30,000 people get pregnant due to rape each year and about 50% end in abortion.

Bringing up brain tumors, pre-eclampsia and pregnant rape victims paralyzed due to a suicide attempt shows that you are not comfortable rationalizing or otherwise attempting to justify what the majority of abortions are.

Now who is making assumptions? We were discussing what would happen if abortion became illegal, and inevitably health of the mother and rape would come up. If you want to talk about the cases of consensual sex let's go for it. I'd be glad to. But don't bring them up try to dance around the cases that make you look cruel.

They're not those. Why would rare exceptions determine the rule? There are exceptions to all rules. That doesn't mean discard the rules altogether as you advocate here.

Because if abortion is the wrongful murder of an innocent person, there can't be any exception to the rule without it being hypocritical and unjust.

 

[Jezebel]

I made no such assumption. We were mostly debating semantics. Directly quote my assumption.

So when you do it yourself it's something different. That's fine, as long as I posted where you did.

What was said:


He was either bringing up heartbeat and brain waves because he felt those with such physical characteristics should be protected or it was a red herring.

And, Granite has been here for some time. He generally opposes abortion (thinks they should be illegal) but we were discussing his exceptions.

So, I made no assumption but to say he feels some should be illegal isn't an assumption at all even if I had said that, which I didn't.

Granite - do you feel abortion at a certain point should be illegal? Please remind us of your position.

I'll do some searching in lieu of his response to the above.

EDIT:

I recalled enough of Granite's past comments on abortion to know he feels some should be illegal.

He is free to correct me if I am wrong but I made no such assumption in post 283 in the first place, either way.

And isn't this an example of saying that If you believe X you have to believe X or you're inconsistent, or in this case it's a red herring:
"Therefore, either you feel all elective abortion should be illegal after 7 weeks or your personhood distinction is a red herring and has nothing at all to do with your argument about the legality of elective abortion."

I think it is. So again I ask, how is that any different then what I've been doing to you?

Or did he say he believed all elective abortion should illegal after 7 weeks?

He didn't need to. That was his position. When he says repeatedly "Rather I'm disputing the de facto assumption/implication that a human blastocyst is morally equal to that of fully developed humans."

A human blastocyst need not be considered a moral equal to that of fully developed humans. It's a false dilemma. He was "pitting" the life of the blastocyst against the life of a fully developed human when that wasn't my "de facto assumption/implication" at all.

Here's quip clearly making the assumption i.e. "de facto" when this was never my argument nor did it ever need to be.

But since he didn't say that, you're assuming right? It may be a logical assumption since it was implied, but it's an assumption all the same. So again I ask how is this any different then what I've been doing to you?

If he feels certain abortions should be illegal (evidence by his vote despite later comments that are contrary to his vote) then yes, that position will be forced on others.

He changed his position from how he voted and thereby clarified the confusion on the issue.

And if you feel that abortion should be illegal, and you point to me a signature that says if abortion is illegal it will be murder, it's only logical to believe you think people that have/perform abortions are murderers.

I am noticing that you're not directly quoting me of what you're accusing me of but rather lazily referencing to ambiguous points that you would like to declare is me making unfounded assumptions and/or putting words into people's mouth.

Either directly quote me doing so or I'm done playing this tit for tat game with you.

How is giving the post # vs quoting you making ambiguous points? You're right I didn't give the quote because I was being lazy. You quoted it yourself.

How is it misleading? :idunno:

The quote is not mine. It is Ron Paul's quote.

You referred me to the quote in your signature when we originally started debating.

You said:

See my sig/Ron Paul quote

When I said "there is a difference between ardently supporting a murder charge for all involved in abortion and my position" it is because I was arguing in favor of feticide laws being enforced for abortion. That doesn't mean I disagree with Ron Paul's quote.

He is really just stating facts. What is there to disagree with?

Except you were arguing in favor of feticide charges instead of murder ones. That directly contradict Ron Paul's quote.

How is this dishonest? Your reading comprehension is in serious doubt. Take care when reading what I've written. I try hard to be as precise as possible.

No, you take great care to talk out of both sides of your mouth so you can pick whichever position is most convenient to you and save face when people point out flaws in your argument .

"Those opposed to abortion feel strongly that it is immoral and a travesty akin to murder." - Moral opinion

"They want it to be against the law because they feel strongly about how wrong it is." - Legal opinion

Notice the legal opinion is that they want it to be illegal not necessarily a murder charge as this would vary in each individual pro-life individual. However, all pro-life individuals would likely agree that abortion should be illegal. That's what makes them pro-life :duh:

If you believe something is akin to murder, it's only logical that it actually be a murder charge. That's not an unreasonable assumption.

You should ask for clarification if you're not sure or if I have been in any way unclear rather than making assumptions about things I have not said. :e4e:

Are you not familiar with the term "implied"?

You say that abortion is akin to murder, you refer me to a quote in your signature that says that after abortion became illegal it would be murder, but I have reading comprehension issues because I assumed you believe people that have/perform abortions are murderers. You yourself have admitted that to you abortion is murder, but I'm putting words in your mouth and making assumptions.

Does not compute.

 

[WizardofOz]

So it isn't murder if he tries to "save it"? You could easily exploit that loophole to allow for any first trimester abortion, or "removal of a fetus".

Only if the mother's life was in clear risk. She would have to be diagnosed with a life-threatening complication. I'm not sure how exploitable it would really be. You certainly could not exploit that "loophole" to allow for any first trimester abortion as you claim.

And, people possibly skirting a law isn't a valid reason to not have said law.

Sorry, I got the complications wrong.

I was thinking of a specific case that I read a while back and I was wrong. Her complication wasn't preeclampsia it was pulmonary hypertension.

"Last fall, a 27-year-old mother of four entered the hospital 11 weeks pregnant and was suffering from pulmonary hypertension.

Doctors said if her pregnancy wasn't terminated, she would likely die of heart failure - taking her unborn child with her."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-debate-hospital-stripped-catholic-status/story?id=12455295

There are two sides to that case: "Bishop Olmstead went a step further on Tuesday....He argued hospital officials did not try to save both the mother and child.

"Instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph's medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week old baby should be directly killed," Olmstead said."

They should have tried to save both or treated the disease. There are a lot of facts missing from this article. It would always be preferred if they didn't purposely kill the healthy 11-week-old even if it does ultimately die from complications.

After all, killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally, right?

You missed this sentence:

“The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients. In practice, it is possible to administer chemotherapy from 14 weeks gestational age onwards with specific attention to prenatal care.”

and this one:
"
A collection of research studies published in a special edition of The Lancet medical journal has offered reassurance for women as it was found that chemotherapy treatment after the first trimester does not harm the unborn child. "

Delaying chemotherapy, even for a small amount of time, can be harmful and increase risk of death.

You've completely missed the premise of the entire article. I highlighted it in yellow above but I'll repeat it here: "The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients"

-and-

"Treatment of malignancy in pregnancy is still associated with unacceptable errors: eg, the sometimes unjustified termination of pregnancies or the choice of an inadequate strategy for treatment of a tumour with the risk of compromised survival."

"Researchers in Belgium followed up 70 children whose mothers were treated with chemotherapy while they were in the womb. They were found to have normal development, IQ, hearing, heart function and general health."

Delaying chemotherapy, even for a small amount of time, can be harmful and increase risk of death.

Then they shouldn't delay. That is the point of the article! Again, "the decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients."

But can it be carried out if it will knowingly result in the death of an innocent person, even if it is meant to do something else like save the mother?

As long as you are not purposely killing the fetus I would classify the death the same as I would as those who die from complications from surgery. Don't intentionally kill a human patient. If it dies from complications of a medical procedure, no crime has been committed.

I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing.

I'm arguing from your viewpoint

You do that a lot. Thanks, I don't need you to argue from my viewpoint. :e4e:

Just argue from yours.

Let's be clear. Her suicide attempt is what caused her paralysis not the doctors action or inaction. They later did perform the surgery and she's still paralyzed. There was no guarantee that earlier surgery would have cured that.

Actions have consequences. To blame her paralysis on abortion law is twisting the facts in favor of your bias.

What caused her suicide attempt is irrelevant in deciding what to do about it. Don't deflect.

I never even brought up what caused her suicide attempt. I brought up what caused her paralysis.

It's a simple yes or no question. I'm not asking you to weigh in on what caused it. I'm asking you what the doctors should be legally allowed to do about it. Part of the reason later surgery was ineffective was because they had to wait longer to perform it.

Just should be legally able to treat her paralysis. They should not be legally able to purposely kill the fetus before doing so.

When is the risk high enough for the woman to be able to have an abortion?

If there is just a 50% chance that she will die? 90%?

Treat both patients equally. Take action when both patients have the best chance of survival.

This is a vague non answer. Vague declarations like this are the reason Ireland had to reexamine their abortion law after the death of Savita H.

:doh:
Perhaps the long breaks you take between responses is effecting your ability to follow the conversation. You asked a very vague question.

Of course you're going to get a vague response when you ask a vague question like that.

How do you take action when both patients have the best chance of survival when one patients chance is steadily declining as the other's is rising?

Act when both have the best chance of survival. Each case would vary.

So doctors should not be permitted to intervene to save the mothers life pre viability if their only option is abortion?

It depends on how you define "abortion". If by abortion you mean ending the pregnancy by intentionally killing the fetus then yes, then no, that should not be permitted.

If by abortion you mean, removing the fetus (ending the pregnancy) where all efforts can be made to save the life of both then yes, that should be permitted only when the alternative is to do nothing and have both die.

I've said this almost word for word already.

why do you keep bringing up states?

Because the enforcement of homicide laws is, and should be, left up to each state.

My signature isn't a sufficient explanation?

So then giving lesser sentences can possibly say something about the value of the victim, depending on why they got a lesser sentence yes?

I've already said that is not the case. Why do people get longer sentences for injuring a police officer working in the line of duty? Are they more valuable than you or I? No, and it's ludicrous to insinuate (repeatedly I might add) that the length of sentence does anything
to determine the value of the victim.

Now we're back to states again when that's never what I asked you.
I already know what you would prefer as far as feticide vs murder, you answered it. I was just clearing up the original misunderstanding, and why you seem so incapable of calling for say 20+ years, or life in prison for women that have abortions.

I never said I couldn't. This just proves that all you're trying to do is pigeonhole me on one response. If I give one specific answer for one specific case (like I did in the real life example of a woman being sentenced to 6-20 years for feticide) you'll be here asking why I can't call for more than 20 years when I said that 6-20 sounded fair for that case.

There is no abortion = X years in prison. Stop demanding mindless simplicity in my responses.

And why you can't seem to account for circumstances.

That's all I want to do. I've said repeatedly that circumstances matter. What circumstances am I not accounting for?

They would, but not to the point that fetuses are classed as a different charge altogether simply because they're younger. You arguing that a woman aborting is a different circumstance as opposed to murdering her husband is the same argument many people would make for why women that have abortions shouldn't be punished at all.

How is it your middle ground when it is just as unlikely to garner support as charges for murder?

You're confused on what feticide is. Feticide = fetal homicide. It is by definition a homicide charge.

No what I've done is pointed out that discussing consensual sex is a red herring on your part and you're only doing it to make your argument easier. You don't care if the woman consented or not, so don't try to use "consent" to save face.

Even if she was completely and totally blameless, you believe she should have no right to end her pregnancy. Period.

It is equally a red herring for you to mention it. You don't care how she got pregnant either, you want all abortion to be legal anytime for any reason.

It's a non-issue as far as the two of us go.

But I asked you what if she has no criminal record, was 4 weeks pregnant as the result of consensual sex. Let's say she purchased an abortion pill from a drug dealer.

:bang:
- I would have to look at the laws in the particular state.
- I am not looking for a one-size fits all sentence.
- 6-20 sounded fair for a first time offender.
- I am less concerned with the prison sentence people get and more concerned with arguing for the prohibition of abortion.
- I don't need to know how long to sentence a robber to prison to know robbery should be illegal.

Why you're so focused on this rabbit hole, I am unsure. You had trouble telling me how long a robber should go to prison but have no problem telling me that robbery should be illegal.

That should have told you something.

You haven't spent much time with your peers in the pro life movement:
"
Punishing women on top of that would serve no purpose other than making a moral statement."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/should-women-face-prison-time-for-abortion

"Just to set the record straight, pro-lifers have never even suggested that women be jailed for having abortions,"
http://www.priestsforlife.org/lte/lte26.html

"Punish the doctor for committing an illegal procedure, but don’t punish the woman, who will often be punishing herself plenty. - See more at:"
http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/whatpunishment/#sthash.wx0n5u2K.dpuf

"Answer: No. The people who should go to jail in that case are the abortionists."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jailing-women-who-have-abortions

"Prolife legislators and pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned."
http://www.aul.org/2010/04/why-the-states-did-not-prosecute-women-for-abortion-before-roe-v-wade/

Interview with pro life protestors on imprisoning women for abortions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

I am not debating them. I am debating you. I couldn't care less what quotes you can dig up on an internet search.

The first article was very good and some very thought provoking points were made. I hope you read it more than just for a quote mine.

The first thing we need to remember is law’s first purpose: to prevent unjust action. The point of ending abortion is just that: ending abortion. If a state finds that a particular legal punishment for doctors who perform abortions has a satisfactory deterrent effect on their abortion rates, then victory is achieved. Punishing women on top of that would serve no purpose other than making a moral statement. Acting on principle and on prudence need not be mutually exclusive. Second, it’s important to recognize the legal and cultural context that distinguishes abortion from post-birth homicide, theft, rape, and just about every other crime: only abortion has decades of legal recognition and social celebration as a constitutional right, and pervasive misinformation about what its victim is – a propaganda campaign backed by a powerful industry, influential advocacy groups, forces at every level of government, one of America’s two main political parties, and scores of wide-ranging voices in our media, education establishment, and popular culture. It’s entirely appropriate to consider how pervasively abortion-seekers have been misled for so long when deciding whether to punish them.

:think:

Those are some points I had not yet given much consideration but I must say that they are certainly valid points to bring up.

Mother=person hired hitman
Abortionist=hitman

I don't think it's a apples to apples comparison. You are so focused on this white/black definition of homicide that does not exist in the real world.

No judge or jury will ever see abortion the same as hiring a hit man. I am more interested in reality than I am in your attempts to distort that reality in an attempt to pigeonhole what my argument must or must not be.

Heck, see the article you quoted for reference. Has hiring a hit man ever had decades of legal recognition and social celebration as a constitutional right?

Adoption does nothing to remedy a forced pregnancy and birth. Completely irrelevant in a discussion about abortion rights.

Not completely irrelevant. If a woman without the means of raising children has no alternative then you'd have a point. As it is, society has created a way for woman who do not want to or cannot raise their children a way to remove themselves from their responsibility.

Adoption is a integral part of the pro-life package our society offers women.

OK. Maybe it really just meant to discover what it asked. Given the variety of votes, it seems that is just a small piece of the puzzle. Given the poll, it does seem that even most pro-choicers can see the detriment of allowing partial birth abortions.

Which is what you think the limit on abortions should be, which is basically asking whether or not late term abortions should be legal.

Nothing you said contradicted my point.

You do realize that you are telling me why I really made the OP and what my poll is really asking, right?

Newborns are living humans

So is a fetus

I never claimed otherwise.

Just had to check as a lot of pro-choice individuals will argue whether a human zygote is actually a human.

By forcing a woman to allow use of her body against her will it is infringing on her right to control over her body, and causing her bodily harm.

You could just as easily take this up with most pro-choicers who feel abortion should be illegal after viability.

But overall, if they are illegal will they decline?

Of course they will decline

That's all I was looking for there. :e4e:

You don't always need laws to reduce certain kinds of abortions, sometimes they regulate themselves like in Canada.

Yes, because even though they're legal, doctors won't perform late-term abortions...like in Canada.

And you missed the part that said they're still performed, just not for non extenuating circumstances.

Apparently I did. This conflicts with your ideology as much as it does mine. They won't perform elective abortions after very early in the pregnancy. Isn't that doctor forcing a woman to allow use of her body against her will it is infringing on her right to control over her body, and causing her bodily harm?

Rape/health of the mother abortions are rare indeed. Why do you try to justify all others because of the extreme cases?

Why does them being rare matter?

Because the fringe cases shouldn't be used as justification for all others.

Are you comfortable with those abortions being legal because they're rare?

No. Are you comfortable with all abortion other than rape/health of the mother being illegal?

Why ask questions you already know the answer to?

Also define rare, because something like 30,000 people get pregnant due to rape each year and about 50% end in abortion.

Rare - 95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems. nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant. Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother's physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1% of all abortions. Nationally, 82% of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. These statistics strongly suggest abortion is used primarily as birth control.

Rare - You said that 30,000 people get pregnant due to rape each year. However 6 Million give birth each year (that's actual births and not just pregnancies)

30,000 is still much than less than 0.5% of all pregnancies.

Yes, that is rare indeed.

 

[Jezebel]

Only if the mother's life was in clear risk. She would have to be diagnosed with a life-threatening complication. I'm not sure how exploitable it would really be. You certainly could not exploit that "loophole" to allow for any first trimester abortion as you claim.

And, people possibly skirting a law isn't a valid reason to not have said law.

If the fetus and mother have rights totally independent of each other than why does it matter if the woman has a life threatening complication or not?

Why is it wrong to remove the fetus if the mother is healthy?

There are two sides to that case: "Bishop Olmstead went a step further on Tuesday....He argued hospital officials did not try to save both the mother and child.

"Instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph's medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week old baby should be directly killed," Olmstead said."

They should have tried to save both or treated the disease. There are a lot of facts missing from this article. It would always be preferred if they didn't purposely kill the healthy 11-week-old even if it does ultimately die from complications.

After all, killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally, right?

But is Bishop Olmstead a doctor? The doctor's felt that the only way to save the woman's life was an abortion. The hospital said:"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy."

How would they "treat her disease"? Should the abortion have been allowed or not? That's what I'm asking you.

You've completely missed the premise of the entire article. I highlighted it in yellow above but I'll repeat it here: "The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients"

-and-

"Treatment of malignancy in pregnancy is still associated with unacceptable errors: eg, the sometimes unjustified termination of pregnancies or the choice of an inadequate strategy for treatment of a tumour with the risk of compromised survival."

"Researchers in Belgium followed up 70 children whose mothers were treated with chemotherapy while they were in the womb. They were found to have normal development, IQ, hearing, heart function and general health."



Then they shouldn't delay. That is the point of the article! Again, "the decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients."

Again, you're purposely ignoring the fact that the article stated that this about chemotherapy after the first trimester. So yes, there is a delay. I pointed it out for you, and posted an example of why it can be problematic.

Here's another that clearly states that since you're having trouble understand the first one:


However, recent studies have found that chemotherapy treatment after the first trimester -- when most of the baby's critical growth occurs -- can be safe for baby and mother.

"Ideally, you would avoid chemotherapy in the first trimester of pregnancy," Dr. Bernik said. "The thought is that the fetus is really developing at that stage and the organs are being developed."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chemotherapy-pregnancy-complications-study/story?id=17014354"

As long as you are not purposely killing the fetus I would classify the death the same as I would as those who die from complications from surgery. Don't intentionally kill a human patient. If it dies from complications of a medical procedure, no crime has been committed.

I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing.

So it's okay to do something to someone that you know will kill them, as long as you don't mean to kill them?

You do that a lot. Thanks, I don't need you to argue from my viewpoint. :e4e:

Just argue from yours.

I'll argue however I see fit.

I never even brought up what caused her suicide attempt. I brought up what caused her paralysis.

What caused her paralysis is irrelevant when deciding to treat it.

Just should be legally able to treat her paralysis. They should not be legally able to purposely kill the fetus before doing so.

So should it have been legal to perform the surgery or not?

:doh:
Perhaps the long breaks you take between responses is effecting your ability to follow the conversation. You asked a very vague question.

Of course you're going to get a vague response when you ask a vague question like that.

What was vague about it? When is the risk to woman's life great enough for you? 50? 90? Pick a number.

Act when both have the best chance of survival. Each case would vary.

So how does the law allow for this variety? And once again how do you act when both have a best chance of survival if one is decreasing while the other rising?

It depends on how you define "abortion". If by abortion you mean ending the pregnancy by intentionally killing the fetus then yes, then no, that should not be permitted.

If by abortion you mean, removing the fetus (ending the pregnancy) where all efforts can be made to save the life of both then yes, that should be permitted only when the alternative is to do nothing and have both die.

I've said this almost word for word already.

What if you're removing the fetus because the woman doesn't want it inside of her anymore? Should that be illegal? Why?

Because the enforcement of homicide laws is, and should be, left up to each state.

My signature isn't a sufficient explanation?

State law isn't your personal opinion.

I've already said that is not the case. Why do people get longer sentences for injuring a police officer working in the line of duty? Are they more valuable than you or I? No, and it's ludicrous to insinuate (repeatedly I might add) that the length of sentence does anything
to determine the value of the victim.

Personally I think it's wrong that killing a police officer gets you a longer sentence vs someone else but there are differences between harsher sentencing for police officers vs lenient sentences for fetuses.

A law enforcement official is in a position of authority and working for the government, so it doesn't surprise the government would impose better "protections" for them.

But why is it that killing a fetus/embryo should get you less time? Why do you think that?

I never said I couldn't. This just proves that all you're trying to do is pigeonhole me on one response. If I give one specific answer for one specific case (like I did in the real life example of a woman being sentenced to 6-20 years for feticide) you'll be here asking why I can't call for more than 20 years when I said that 6-20 sounded fair for that case.

1. There is a lot of variance between 6 to 20 years.
2.You may not say you can't, but you still won't do it. I find that interesting.
3.I'm not trying to "pigeonhole" you, I'm just not entirely convinced that you think having an abortion is as abhorrent as say killing an infant.

There is no abortion = X years in prison. Stop demanding mindless simplicity in my responses.

I never demanded mindless simplicity. I've never said you couldn't account for circumstances. I've never said you can't use an example. You're accusing me of putting limitations on you that I never did. I gave you a example and asked you for examples of the circumstances you were referring to.

If you are incapable of providing an example or accounting for certain circumstances maybe you haven't really thought this through.

That's all I want to do. I've said repeatedly that circumstances matter. What circumstances am I not accounting for?

So do it. Why can't you make a list of circumstances for robbery like I did for abortion? I was hesitant to answer the robbery question at first because it caught me off guard, but I didn't.

It is equally a red herring for you to mention it. You don't care how she got pregnant either, you want all abortion to be legal anytime for any reason.

It's a non-issue as far as the two of us go.

You brought up women being at fault because no one forced them to have sex. Not me. I didn't because I don't care.

:bang:
- I would have to look at the laws in the particular state.
- I am not looking for a one-size fits all sentence.
- 6-20 sounded fair for a first time offender.
- I am less concerned with the prison sentence people get and more concerned with arguing for the prohibition of abortion.
- I don't need to know how long to sentence a robber to prison to know robbery should be illegal.

Why you're so focused on this rabbit hole, I am unsure. You had trouble telling me how long a robber should go to prison but have no problem telling me that robbery should be illegal.

That should have told you something.

See above responses.

I am not debating them. I am debating you. I couldn't care less what quotes you can dig up on an internet search.

Are you having trouble following the train of this conversation? I was refuting your insinuation that I hadn't thought this through because I expressed surprise that a pro lifer would call for imprisoning women that have had abortions. You remember:

You haven't thought this through, clearly. If pro-lifers are such because they want abortion criminalized then of course those guilty of breaking said laws should go to prison!

It goes without saying.

Have you encountered pro-lifers in the past who suggested community service? What did the other pro-lifers you've encountered recommend if not imprisonment?

The first article was very good and some very thought provoking points were made. I hope you read it more than just for a quote mine.

The first thing we need to remember is law’s first purpose: to prevent unjust action. The point of ending abortion is just that: ending abortion. If a state finds that a particular legal punishment for doctors who perform abortions has a satisfactory deterrent effect on their abortion rates, then victory is achieved. Punishing women on top of that would serve no purpose other than making a moral statement. Acting on principle and on prudence need not be mutually exclusive. Second, it’s important to recognize the legal and cultural context that distinguishes abortion from post-birth homicide, theft, rape, and just about every other crime: only abortion has decades of legal recognition and social celebration as a constitutional right, and pervasive misinformation about what its victim is – a propaganda campaign backed by a powerful industry, influential advocacy groups, forces at every level of government, one of America’s two main political parties, and scores of wide-ranging voices in our media, education establishment, and popular culture. It’s entirely appropriate to consider how pervasively abortion-seekers have been misled for so long when deciding whether to punish them.

:think:

Those are some points I had not yet given much consideration but I must say that they are certainly valid points to bring up.

Except they really aren't and I'll use the author's own example, slavery. It was legal to murder/rape/abuse black people for over 400 years. Does mean that it was okay that the murder/rape/abuse of black people after slavery went unpunished or leniently punished as long as the assailant was white? After all, they were used to abusing black people and needed some time to get used to seeing them as human.

I don't think it's a apples to apples comparison. You are so focused on this white/black definition of homicide that does not exist in the real world.

No judge or jury will ever see abortion the same as hiring a hit man. I am more interested in reality than I am in your attempts to distort that reality in an attempt to pigeonhole what my argument must or must not be.

Heck, see the article you quoted for reference. Has hiring a hit man ever had decades of legal recognition and social celebration as a constitutional right?

But if abortion is killing an innocent child then isn't abortion hiring a hit man, regardless of how a "judge or jury" sees it? What if judges and juries never believe women should be punished at all. Are you equally content with that?

Not completely irrelevant. If a woman without the means of raising children has no alternative then you'd have a point. As it is, society has created a way for woman who do not want to or cannot raise their children a way to remove themselves from their responsibility.

It is completely irrelevant, child raising and pregnancy are two different things. A forced pregnancy is wrong and a violation of a woman's rights, regardless of if she has to raise a child.

Adoption is a integral part of the pro-life package our society offers women.

What are you talking about? Different forms of adoption have been around for thousands of years, long before the pro life and pro choice labels even existed.

You do realize that you are telling me why I really made the OP and what my poll is really asking, right?

Yes, since you seem to think asking about an abortion time limit has nothing to do with late term abortions.

Just had to check as a lot of pro-choice individuals will argue whether a human zygote is actually a human.

The pro choice movement isn't a monolith. I know many pro choice people won't share my views.

You could just as easily take this up with most pro-choicers who feel abortion should be illegal after viability.

If any would like to discuss it I will.

Yes, because even though they're legal, doctors won't perform late-term abortions...like in Canada.



Apparently I did. This conflicts with your ideology as much as it does mine. They won't perform elective abortions after very early in the pregnancy. Isn't that doctor forcing a woman to allow use of her body against her will it is infringing on her right to control over her body, and causing her bodily harm?

Being pro choice=/=wanting to force doctors to perform abortions.

While I disagree with the doctors actions, they're free to decide to put a time limit on when their practice will perform abortions. What I have a problem with is when the law tries to force everybody to do so, and punish those that don't follow.

Because the fringe cases shouldn't be used as justification for all others.

I've never tried to use the "fringe cases" to justify them all. I'm not the one that brought up consensual vs nonconsensual sex. You did. I've made it a point to not go into that because to me it's irrelevant in our discussion. But don't use the woman "consented" as an argument for why women shouldn't have abortions when you don't really care whether the woman consented or not. Unless you're trying to imply that rape victims are somehow at fault for their pregnancies, whose "fault" the pregnancy is doesn't matter and isn't an argument for or against abortion.

Don't hide behind rape pregnancies are "rare" to save face because of your little slip up. If it's not about punishing women for sex then why did you feel the need to bring up that the women chose to have sex in the first place? It doesn't matter to you, remember?

No.

Then why does it matter whether or not they are rare or not?

Are you comfortable with all abortion other than rape/health of the mother being illegal?

No.

Rare - 95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems. nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant. Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother's physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1% of all abortions. Nationally, 82% of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. These statistics strongly suggest abortion is used primarily as birth control.

Rare - You said that 30,000 people get pregnant due to rape each year. However 6 Million give birth each year (that's actual births and not just pregnancies)

30,000 is still much than less than 0.5% of all pregnancies.

Yes, that is rare indeed.

I know the majority of pregnancies aren't caused by rape, I'm asking if they're rare.
30,000 people die a year from suicide. Is it rare?

 

[WizardofOz]

Only if the mother's life was in clear risk. She would have to be diagnosed with a life-threatening complication. I'm not sure how exploitable it would really be. You certainly could not exploit that "loophole" to allow for any first trimester abortion as you claim.

And, people possibly skirting a law isn't a valid reason to not have said law.

If the fetus and mother have rights totally independent of each other than why does it matter if the woman has a life threatening complication or not?

If doing nothing would lead to the death of them both? What do their independent rights have to do with a case of life and death?

Let's say a building is burning and two people are trapped inside. They both have rights totally independent of each other, correct? Now, if you do nothing they both die. If you choose to save the person A, person B will die. What do their rights totally independent of each other have to do with anything in such life and death scenarios?

Either way, so much for the loophole argument you were originally putting forth.

Why is it wrong to remove the fetus if the mother is healthy?

Because it is a completely unnecessary procedure that ends in the death of a living human.

Killing a human for no reason at all is usually considered "wrong" but "wrong" is subjective, isn't it? Why is it wrong to kill a baby that has just been born if the mother doesn't want it?

But is Bishop Olmstead a doctor? The doctor's felt that the only way to save the woman's life was an abortion. The hospital said:"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy."

How would they "treat her disease"? Should the abortion have been allowed or not? That's what I'm asking you.

There are not enough facts given. If they aborted without exploring other options then I would agree with the Bishop. What other treatment was she given prior to the abortion, etc?

Pregnancy in women with pulmonary hypertension​

Pregnancy termination is a high-risk procedure and it should be performed in an experienced centre When the woman chooses to continue pregnancy, it is important that she is managed by a multidisciplinary team in a centre licensed for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension patients. The team should include a pulmonary hypertension specialist, a cardiologist, obstetrician and anaesthetist specialised in managing high-risk pregnancies, and a neonatologist. The woman must be followed at least monthly. The cardiac demands should be minimised by rest and a low salt diet. To avoid caval vein compression, the patient should lie in the lateral position. Hospital admission in the second trimester is often advised, though its benefit is unproven and a satisfactory outcome of pregnancy has been described when women were followed on an outpatient basis. Oxygen should be given when hypoxaemia is present. Anticoagulation therapy should be continued when there is an established indication outside pregnancy. It should, however, be considered on an individual basis in other women, since there may be bleeding risk, for example in women with Eisenmenger syndrome or portal hypertension. When therapeutic anticoagulation therapy is given, it is mandatory that the anticoagulation effect is monitored carefully and frequently, since dose requirements change during pregnancy with increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate

It seems that there are a lot of ways that this condition must be treated. Of course hospitals will offer termination as this offers the hospital (and their insurance) less risk and lower cost.

"Our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we always save the life we can save," said Hunt.

If that were the case then I would not want to see anyone criminally charged.

“The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients.

Again, you're purposely ignoring the fact that the article stated that this about chemotherapy after the first trimester. So yes, there is a delay. I pointed it out for you, and posted an example of why it can be problematic.

You provided a source. This source specifically says “The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients.".

The conclusion of the study that you cited is that "Pregnant Women Don’t Need Abortion to Treat Cancer".

You're purposely ignoring what your own source clearly states. Yes, there are slight variances in the timing of the treatment. They simply time the treatment to give the fetus the best chance of survival.

But, the mother does not need to abort.

Here's another that clearly states that since you're having trouble understand the first one:

It seems I understand your source better than you do. Pregnant women don’t need abortion to treat cancer.

However, recent studies have found that chemotherapy treatment after the first trimester -- when most of the baby's critical growth occurs -- can be safe for baby and mother.

"Ideally, you would avoid chemotherapy in the first trimester of pregnancy," Dr. Bernik said. "The thought is that the fetus is really developing at that stage and the organs are being developed."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chemotherapy-pregnancy-complications-study/story?id=17014354"

:doh: And guess what...if they do decide to administer chemotherapy during the first trimester, who is put at risk?

What poses a greater risk to the life of the unborn fetus, chemotherapy during the first trimester or being aborted?

You're really not helping yourself with these sources you're digging up.

As long as you are not purposely killing the fetus I would classify the death the same as I would as those who die from complications from surgery. Don't intentionally kill a human patient. If it dies from complications of a medical procedure, no crime has been committed.

I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing.

So it's okay to do something to someone that you know will kill them, as long as you don't mean to kill them?

No more okay or not okay as separating conjoined twins. Is it okay to separate conjoined twins if you know the surgery will kill one of them, even if you don't mean to kill them?

So should it have been legal to perform the surgery or not?

To treat her injury? No. I said that in the last post. "Just should be legally able to treat her paralysis. They should not be legally able to purposely kill the fetus before doing so."

That's pretty clear :idunno:

What was vague about it? When is the risk to woman's life great enough for you? 50? 90? Pick a number.

It depends on the complications the mother faces, the length of pregnancy, etc. It's vague because you cannot just pose simplistic "pick a number" demands and expect a specific response.

Every case is different. It's not as easy as picking a percentage out of a hat.

Act when both have the best chance of survival. Each case would vary.

So how does the law allow for this variety?

Professional opinion and expertise of the medical team responsible for treating the mother and unborn child. If abortion were illegal unless the mother would likely die without intervention who do you think would make such determinations?

And once again how do you act when both have a best chance of survival if one is decreasing while the other rising?

:liberals: Um, act when both have the best combined chance of survival. The medical staff should treat both patients equally and make all attempts to save both patients. Their treatment(s) should be in accordance with this principle.

What confuses you about this?

What if you're removing the fetus because the woman doesn't want it inside of her anymore? Should that be illegal? Why?

Because it needlessly ends the life of a (an innocent) human.

Because the enforcement of homicide laws is, and should be, left up to each state.

My signature isn't a sufficient explanation?

State law isn't your personal opinion.

That doesn't even make sense. When I say that enforcement of homicide laws is left up to each state, I am stating a fact.

Personally I think it's wrong that killing a police officer gets you a longer sentence vs someone else but there are differences between harsher sentencing for police officers vs lenient sentences for fetuses.

Not really. It's the same principle; the sentence does not define the value of the deceased.

But why is it that killing a fetus/embryo should get you less time? Why do you think that?

I don't think it should but I would be OK if it did as long as abortion were criminalized. It's the principle I'm interested in not necessarily the sentence.

I actually have a middle ground, unlike yourself.

1. There is a lot of variance between 6 to 20 years.

The 6-20 is from an actual case. This is the current legal system we live under, otherwise known as reality. I cited it as, if abortion were criminalized, similar sentencing guidelines would pop up.

why you seem so incapable of calling for say 20+ years, or life in prison for women that have abortions.

I never said I couldn't. This just proves that all you're trying to do is pigeonhole me on one response. If I give one specific answer for one specific case (like I did in the real life example of a woman being sentenced to 6-20 years for feticide) you'll be here asking why I can't call for more than 20 years when I said that 6-20 sounded fair for that case.

There is no abortion = X years in prison. Stop demanding mindless simplicity in my responses.

2.You may not say you can't, but you still won't do it. I find that interesting.

You don't understand how the legal system works. Even now sentences are determined my many factors and not simply what the particular crime committed was. There is no X number of years for robbery because that isn't how the system works.

There likewise would not be X number of years for feticide because other factors help determine what the sentence would be.

3.I'm not trying to "pigeonhole" you

Sure you are.

I'm just not entirely convinced that you think having an abortion is as abhorrent as say killing an infant.

I do but this is actually completely irrelevant as I need not consider them equal in order to argue that the unborn have value enough to give them legal protection against being unnecessarily killed.

I don't think killing a kitten is as abhorrent as killing an infant but both are certainly abhorrent. The problem here is that you do not feel that having an abortion is abhorrent at all.

I never demanded mindless simplicity. I've never said you couldn't account for circumstances. I've never said you can't use an example. You're accusing me of putting limitations on you that I never did. I gave you a example and asked you for examples of the circumstances you were referring to.

If you are incapable of providing an example or accounting for certain circumstances maybe you haven't really thought this through.

Are you incapable of providing an example? Because we've already had some and they've been addressed. Again 6-20 isn't a range I just made up out of thin air. It is a real-life example of how sentencing guidelines actually work.

That's all I want to do. I've said repeatedly that circumstances matter. What circumstances am I not accounting for?

So do it. Why can't you make a list of circumstances for robbery like I did for abortion? I was hesitant to answer the robbery question at first because it caught me off guard, but I didn't.

:liberals:
You didn't what? I've already mentioned some possible circumstances. Other examples are: prior conviction, age of the offender, age of the fetus, method of abortion, emotional state of the offender, circumstances of the pregnancy, wishes of the father, et al.

Are you having trouble following the train of this conversation? I was refuting your insinuation that I hadn't thought this through because I expressed surprise that a pro lifer would call for imprisoning women that have had abortions. You remember:

Again. I am not here to discuss the opinions other pro-lifers have. I am here to discuss mine. I cannot speak for these others.

Except they really aren't and I'll use the author's own example, slavery. It was legal to murder/rape/abuse black people for over 400 years. Does mean that it was okay that the murder/rape/abuse of black people after slavery went unpunished or leniently punished as long as the assailant was white? After all, they were used to abusing black people and needed some time to get used to seeing them as human.

You've completely missed the point of the section I quoted. You're clearly deflecting.

But if abortion is killing an innocent child then isn't abortion hiring a hit man, regardless of how a "judge or jury" sees it? What if judges and juries never believe women should be punished at all. Are you equally content with that?

As long as abortion is illegal I'll let the punishment rest in the hands of those who determine such things. I don't think it's justice if they go unpunished and I doubt people would be let off the hook with a slap on the wrist if abortion were indeed criminalized.

Already, 6-20 year sentences are a possibility and that's with the current state of abortion law.

Not completely irrelevant. If a woman without the means of raising children has no alternative then you'd have a point. As it is, society has created a way for woman who do not want to or cannot raise their children a way to remove themselves from their responsibility.

It is completely irrelevant, child raising and pregnancy are two different things. A forced pregnancy is wrong and a violation of a woman's rights, regardless of if she has to raise a child.

So you declare.

Adoption is a integral part of the pro-life package our society offers women.

What are you talking about? Different forms of adoption have been around for thousands of years, long before the pro life and pro choice labels even existed.

:liberals:
So? Your statement does nothing to address my point. You're deflecting again.

You do realize that you are telling me why I really made the OP and what my poll is really asking, right?

Yes, since you seem to think asking about an abortion time limit has nothing to do with late term abortions.

I never said nothing to do with and even said it's a piece of the puzzle. You're building a strawman and nothing more.

The pro choice movement isn't a monolith. I know many pro choice people won't share my views.

Obviously since even most pro-choicers disagree with your rather extreme/fringe position.

Because the fringe cases shouldn't be used as justification for all others.

I've never tried to use the "fringe cases" to justify them all.

Sure you have, that's why you bring up pregnant 13-year-old girls facing paralysis as a result of a suicide attempt. That's why you bring up pregnant women with cancer. That's why you bring up preeclampsia and pulmonary hypertension.

You bring this up rather than the norm which is abortion done for purely elective reasons.

I know the majority of pregnancies aren't caused by rape, I'm asking if they're rare.
30,000 people die a year from suicide. Is it rare?

As compared with other causes of death, yes, 30,000/year is rare. That is 1.2% of the 2,468,435 deaths per year. Yet, this is more than double the rate of pregnancies resulting from rape.

Yes, less than .5% is rare, semantic games aside.

I look forward to your response sometime next month

 

[drbrumley]

WTH?

 

[gcthomas]

WTH?

She was obviously referring to her perception at the time, of the reasons for the ruling, which she realised very quickly were wrong. Quote mines by advocate groups should always be checked against the original for context.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

​

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

 

[Jezebel]

If doing nothing would lead to the death of them both? What do their independent rights have to do with a case of life and death?

Let's say a building is burning and two people are trapped inside. They both have rights totally independent of each other, correct? Now, if you do nothing they both die. If you choose to save the person A, person B will die. What do their rights totally independent of each other have to do with anything in such life and death scenarios?

Either way, so much for the loophole argument you were originally putting forth.

The only similar scenario would harming and possibly killing person B to save person A. By saving Person A, you didn't do anything to kill Person B. You just picked a person. Not the case with doing something that will cause the death of the fetus.

Because it is a completely unnecessary procedure that ends in the death of a living human.

Killing a human for no reason at all is usually considered "wrong" but "wrong" is subjective, isn't it?

So why is it okay if the mother's health is in danger? After all it still ends in the death of a living human.

Why is it wrong to kill a baby that has just been born if the mother doesn't want it?

I'm pretty sure we went over this already.

There are not enough facts given. If they aborted without exploring other options then I would agree with the Bishop. What other treatment was she given prior to the abortion, etc?

Pregnancy in women with pulmonary hypertension​

Pregnancy termination is a high-risk procedure and it should be performed in an experienced centre When the woman chooses to continue pregnancy, it is important that she is managed by a multidisciplinary team in a centre licensed for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension patients. The team should include a pulmonary hypertension specialist, a cardiologist, obstetrician and anaesthetist specialised in managing high-risk pregnancies, and a neonatologist. The woman must be followed at least monthly. The cardiac demands should be minimised by rest and a low salt diet. To avoid caval vein compression, the patient should lie in the lateral position. Hospital admission in the second trimester is often advised, though its benefit is unproven and a satisfactory outcome of pregnancy has been described when women were followed on an outpatient basis. Oxygen should be given when hypoxaemia is present. Anticoagulation therapy should be continued when there is an established indication outside pregnancy. It should, however, be considered on an individual basis in other women, since there may be bleeding risk, for example in women with Eisenmenger syndrome or portal hypertension. When therapeutic anticoagulation therapy is given, it is mandatory that the anticoagulation effect is monitored carefully and frequently, since dose requirements change during pregnancy with increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate

It seems that there are a lot of ways that this condition must be treated. Of course hospitals will offer termination as this offers the hospital (and their insurance) less risk and lower cost.

"Our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we always save the life we can save," said Hunt.

If that were the case then I would not want to see anyone criminally charged.

You provided a source. This source specifically says “The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients.".

The conclusion of the study that you cited is that "Pregnant Women Don’t Need Abortion to Treat Cancer".

You're purposely ignoring what your own source clearly states. Yes, there are slight variances in the timing of the treatment. They simply time the treatment to give the fetus the best chance of survival.

But, the mother does not need to abort.



It seems I understand your source better than you do. Pregnant women don’t need abortion to treat cancer.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking you, should the woman be allowed to receive chemotherapy in the first trimester? Or should she be legally required to postpone?

:doh: And guess what...if they do decide to administer chemotherapy during the first trimester, who is put at risk?

What poses a greater risk to the life of the unborn fetus, chemotherapy during the first trimester or being aborted?

You're really not helping yourself with these sources you're digging up.

See above.

No more okay or not okay as separating conjoined twins. Is it okay to separate conjoined twins if you know the surgery will kill one of them, even if you don't mean to kill them?

Can you legally do that?

To treat her injury? No. I said that in the last post. "Just should be legally able to treat her paralysis. They should not be legally able to purposely kill the fetus before doing so."

That's pretty clear :idunno:

You keep changing your position. First you said no to surgery, then you said they should be able to treat her paralysis. So should they be able to perform the surgery even though it will result in the fetuses death? Are you okay with that, so long as they don't abort beforehand?

It depends on the complications the mother faces, the length of pregnancy, etc. It's vague because you cannot just pose simplistic "pick a number" demands and expect a specific response.

Every case is different. It's not as easy as picking a percentage out of a hat.

So are you saying abortion laws should have an exception to save the life of the mother?

Professional opinion and expertise of the medical team responsible for treating the mother and unborn child. If abortion were illegal unless the mother would likely die without intervention who do you think would make such determinations?

:liberals: Um, act when both have the best combined chance of survival. The medical staff should treat both patients equally and make all attempts to save both patients. Their treatment(s) should be in accordance with this principle.

What confuses you about this?

The fact that it isn't possible, and like I said is quite vague.

Because it needlessly ends the life of a (an innocent) human.

But it's okay to kill that same innocent human if its mother is sick?

That doesn't even make sense. When I say that enforcement of homicide laws is left up to each state, I am stating a fact.

It does make sense, I'm saying I'm asking for your personal opinion. Not state laws.

Not really. It's the same principle; the sentence does not define the value of the deceased.

But is there a special law saying that everybody else that's not a cop gets a lesser sentence because the victim wasn't a cop?

I don't think it should but I would be OK if it did as long as abortion were criminalized. It's the principle I'm interested in not necessarily the sentence.

That's all I wanted to know.

I actually have a middle ground, unlike yourself.

No you don't, but we already went over this.

The 6-20 is from an actual case. This is the current legal system we live under, otherwise known as reality. I cited it as, if abortion were criminalized, similar sentencing guidelines would pop up.


You don't understand how the legal system works. Even now sentences are determined my many factors and not simply what the particular crime committed was. There is no X number of years for robbery because that isn't how the system works.

There likewise would not be X number of years for feticide because other factors help determine what the sentence would be.

You're still hiding behind what the legal system would do but ignoring that I asked you what you wished it would do.

I do but this is actually completely irrelevant as I need not consider them equal in order to argue that the unborn have value enough to give them legal protection against being unnecessarily killed.

I don't think killing a kitten is as abhorrent as killing an infant but both are certainly abhorrent. The problem here is that you do not feel that having an abortion is abhorrent at all.

Either they're equal human beings with equal rights or they aren't though. If they're not, then then their should be no laws for their protection.

Are you incapable of providing an example?

I'm pretty sure I did.

Because we've already had some and they've been addressed. Again 6-20 isn't a range I just made up out of thin air. It is a real-life example of how sentencing guidelines actually work.

But I was asking what you thought she deserved, once again.

:liberals:
You didn't what? I've already mentioned some possible circumstances. Other examples are: prior conviction, age of the offender, age of the fetus, method of abortion, emotional state of the offender, circumstances of the pregnancy, wishes of the father, et al.

I didn't avoid the question completely or give vague answers.

Again. I am not here to discuss the opinions other pro-lifers have. I am here to discuss mine. I cannot speak for these others.

Remember:

You haven't thought this through, clearly. If pro-lifers are such because they want abortion criminalized then of course those guilty of breaking said laws should go to prison!

It goes without saying.

Have you encountered pro-lifers in the past who suggested community service? What did the other pro-lifers you've encountered recommend if not imprisonment?

And I answered you.

You've completely missed the point of the section I quoted. You're clearly deflecting.

I was explaining why his reasoning for not punishing women wouldn't be logical, and using his example to show why. How is refuting someone's claim deflecting?

So you declare.

Isn't the point of debate to state your opinions and defend them?

:liberals:
So? Your statement does nothing to address my point. You're deflecting again.

Your point was that adoption was available to rape victims "as part of the pro life package", and I stated why adoption was irrelevant to this discussion and pro lifers.

Don't try to get out of it by saying "you're deflecting" because you don't like my answer.

I never said nothing to do with and even said it's a piece of the puzzle. You're building a strawman and nothing more.

So then what was wrong with what I said initially then?

Obviously since even most pro-choicers disagree with your rather extreme/fringe position.

Why do you keep saying this as if my position being extreme/fringe is supposed to bother me?

Sure you have, that's why you bring up pregnant 13-year-old girls facing paralysis as a result of a suicide attempt. That's why you bring up pregnant women with cancer. That's why you bring up preeclampsia and pulmonary hypertension.

You bring this up rather than the norm which is abortion done for purely elective reasons.

Because we're discussing abortion becoming illegal, and I was asking you about exceptions, limits, and sentences and giving examples. I never said because their are some extreme cases all abortions should be legal. Even if these cases didn't exist, I'd still think abortion should be illegal.

As compared with other causes of death, yes, 30,000/year is rare. That is 1.2% of the 2,468,435 deaths per year. Yet, this is more than double the rate of pregnancies resulting from rape.

Yes, less than .5% is rare, semantic games aside.

I look forward to your response sometime next month

Should people that are suicidal be ignored because suicide is rare and should society not waste time addressing the cause/effects of suicide because it's rare?

 

[intojoy]

Abortion is death.

Death is wrong.

Judging those who put to death the fetus is wrong.

Aborting fetus' is wrong.

Our world is fallen.

It's good to tell people not to abort a fetus.

But we preach Christ and not ourselves.

 

[WizardofOz]

The only similar scenario would harming and possibly killing person B to save person A. By saving Person A, you didn't do anything to kill Person B. You just picked a person. Not the case with doing something that will cause the death of the fetus.

I disagree. If you give a woman with cancer chemo and it kills her fetus you didn't give her chemo with the intent of killing her fetus. No one should be allowed to intentionally kill a fetus.

If a girl needs surgery to repair a spinal cord injury and the surgery results in the death of her fetus, no one intentionally killed the fetus. The fetus died as a result of complications from the surgery.

Can you not differentiate between purposely killing something and it dying as a unintentional result of another procedure?

So why is it okay if the mother's health is in danger? After all it still ends in the death of a living human.

If doing nothing results in the death of them both? In this scenario the fetus has a 0% chance of survival. The fetus' fate is sealed, it will not survive if you do nothing. If doing nothing nothing will also result in the death of the mother then anything that can be done to save the mother should be done.

It doesn't make it "OK" whatever that means in the first place. It makes it medically necessary.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking you, should the woman be allowed to receive chemotherapy in the first trimester? Or should she be legally required to postpone?

I see no reason to postpone given the information we've seen in this thread. The mother could make the decision to wait if chemo in the first trimester could potentially harm her fetus but the treatment is given to treat the cancer, not kill the fetus. No one goes on chemo as a way to abort.

And guess what...if they do decide to administer chemotherapy during the first trimester, who is put at risk?

What poses a greater risk to the life of the unborn fetus, chemotherapy during the first trimester or being aborted?

You're really not helping yourself with these sources you're digging up.

See above.

It is a risk to administer chemo. There are side effects. New research shows that a fetus can be perfectly healthy even if the pregnant mother is treated with chemo therapy. As your link showed, there is no reason to abort simply because a pregnant mother has cancer.

That's really the entire point made by the source you provided. There is no reason to abort.

No more okay or not okay as separating conjoined twins. Is it okay to separate conjoined twins if you know the surgery will kill one of them, even if you don't mean to kill them?

Can you legally do that?

Yes, it is legal to separate conjoined twins.

Although success rates have improved over the years, surgical separation is still rare. Since 1950, at least one twin has survived separation about 75 percent of the time.

more info

Everything in the medial field is percentages. I don't think there is a "we know surgery will kill one" unless the one is already fated to not survive.

I think comparing a pregnant woman and her fetus to conjoined twins is the best comparison possible. It is two humans from the beginning.

You keep changing your position.

:chuckle: No, I don't.

First you said no to surgery,

I said no to aborting.

then you said they should be able to treat her paralysis.

Yes. A pregnant woman should be legally able to have spinal surgery.

So should they be able to perform the surgery even though it will result in the fetuses death? Are you okay with that, so long as they don't abort beforehand?

How would they know it will result in the death of the fetus? I'll repeat again (and again and again) do all you can to keep both patients alive. Just as the woman could die from complications from surgery, so could the fetus. This is not an abortion. The intention is to keep both alive.

So are you saying abortion laws should have an exception to save the life of the mother?

Ending the pregnancy? Yes. Intentionally killing the fetus? No. Remove the fetus if the mother will die without medical intervention and do all you can to keep both patients alive.

Um, act when both have the best combined chance of survival. The medical staff should treat both patients equally and make all attempts to save both patients. Their treatment(s) should be in accordance with this principle.

What confuses you about this?

The fact that it isn't possible, and like I said is quite vague.

Attempting to save both patients isn't possible? It isn't possible to treat both patients equally?

Sure it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Because it needlessly ends the life of a (an innocent) human.

But it's okay to kill that same innocent human if its mother is sick?

No. You're either being obtuse or forgetful given the period of time between responses. It is never OK to kill an innocent human. Ever.

If the mother is sick (see literally dying) and must have the fetus removed then remove the fetus and try to save it.

Do not kill that same innocent human. That is not "okay". If the fetus ultimately dies after all efforts were made to save it then that is a tragic result but at least all that could be done to save it was done.

That is treating the fetus the same as any other patients facing a dire medical emergency.

If a person is in a car accident and there is very little chance of survival, we don't allow doctors to neglect them or stick a pair of scissors in that person's brain. The same principle should apply to all humans.

Heck, if a death row inmate, schedule to die today, had a medical emergency the paramedics would still make all attempts to save that person, wouldn't they? :think:

It does make sense, I'm saying I'm asking for your personal opinion. Not state laws.

My personal opinion is that punishment should be left up to each state. That is also the way it is now. All I am looking for is to criminalize the act itself. Feticide is a type of homicide just like manslaughter. Manslaughter is not the same as first degree murder.

Do you not understand that these distinctions already exist under the "homicide" umbrella? If a person ends up being found guilty of manslaughter does that mean that the person they killed is less of a person than a victim of one found guilty of capital murder?

You seem to lack knowledge of how the criminal justice system already does happen to function. I am looking to establish something within the framework of the system we already have.

You're incessant inquiry is akin to 'if a person kills another person, how long should they go to prison'?

Well, it depends and on a great number of things.

But is there a special law saying that everybody else that's not a cop gets a lesser sentence because the victim wasn't a cop?

It's a special circumstance that is considered at sentencing. Because, circumstances matter in the criminal justice system.

I actually have a middle ground, unlike yourself.

No you don't, but we already went over this.

Sure I do and I explained it to you repeatedly. You saying I don't is plain dishonest. I don't expect a mother who aborts to be sent to prison for life but you will obviously believe what you want to believe regardless of what I actually say.

You're still hiding behind what the legal system would do but ignoring that I asked you what you wished it would do.

Here is my one wish: abortion is a criminal act.

That's really it. How long the woman is sentenced because she commits this crime is another matter altogether and is very much less of my concern.

I do but this is actually completely irrelevant as I need not consider them equal in order to argue that the unborn have value enough to give them legal protection against being unnecessarily killed.

I don't think killing a kitten is as abhorrent as killing an infant but both are certainly abhorrent. The problem here is that you do not feel that having an abortion is abhorrent at all.

Either they're equal human beings with equal rights or they aren't though. If they're not, then then their should be no laws for their protection.

Fallacious reasoning on its face. This is an all or nothing fallacy. There is nothing logical about your position.

Are 17-year-olds human beings with equal rights as 18-year-olds? Nope, therefore there should be no laws for their protection. [/logical fallacy]

Babies should have legal protections, shouldn't they? Yet, they do not have rights equal to that of adults.

But I was asking what you thought she deserved, once again.

:deadhorse: I agree that she deserves to be charged with a crime. I agree that a sentence ranging from 6-20 years sounded fair. If I were to sentence her myself I would need to be provided further information that I am simply not privy to.

Once again (and again and again) the circumstances matter a great deal. Does she have a prior criminal history? Did she cooperate with authorities? Did she attempt to conceal her crime? et al.

If no, yes, no, then I would lean closer to the 6. If yes, no, yes, I would lean toward the 20.

This is how sentencing works now. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel.

I was explaining why his reasoning for not punishing women wouldn't be logical, and using his example to show why. How is refuting someone's claim deflecting?

I would not want the woman to go unpunished. However, he actually does make some logical reasons for doing so. His arguments are logical. I just don't agree with his logic despite my understanding his point(s).

Either way, it was your source to begin with and his arguments are not arguments I was making so let's jump out of this particular rabbit hole for the time being.

Yes, I concede that some pro-lifers would want women who abort charged with a crime but not sent to jail.

There are all kinds out there, aren't there?

Isn't the point of debate to state your opinions and defend them?

Your point was that adoption was available to rape victims "as part of the pro life package", and I stated why adoption was irrelevant to this discussion and pro lifers.

Of course but if you're going to dismiss my point as irrelevant 'just because', that is a declaration only and isn't a very compelling rebuttal.

Society has a safety net of sorts for women not prepared to raise children. Abortion should not be a legal alternative for these women. Adoption is.

That was my point. It is completely relevant to the abortion debate. Some pro-choicers often say 'pro-lifers only care until the child is born'. That is absolute rubbish. It just need not be a huge concern because the other options are already there.

You're flat wrong to say that "adoption was irrelevant to this discussion and pro lifers".

Why do you keep saying this as if my position being extreme/fringe is supposed to bother me?

Whether it bothers you is not my concern. My point is that you could debate the majority of pro-choicers just as well as pro-lifers given your extreme view.

Why do you think that so many pro-choicers would disagree with you? Have you ever thought about it?

Because we're discussing abortion becoming illegal, and I was asking you about exceptions, limits, and sentences and giving examples. I never said because their are some extreme cases all abortions should be legal. Even if these cases didn't exist, I'd still think abortion should be illegal.

My job here is done

Should people that are suicidal be ignored because suicide is rare and should society not waste time addressing the cause/effects of suicide because it's rare?

Now you're conceding that it's rare. You started the semantic game here.

I know the majority of pregnancies aren't caused by rape, I'm asking if they're rare.
30,000 people die a year from suicide. Is it rare?

Don't start a whole new round of strawmen just because you're now going to concede the point. I never said suicidal people should be ignored never said society should not waste its time addressing the cause/effects of suicide because it's rare.

I said rape, incest and life risk of mother pregnancies are rare.

And, they are. Exceptions don't make rules and these are not justifications for elective abortion to be legal.

 

[WizardofOz]

3 gems

3 gems

I'm content with the current viability standard.

It has nothing to do with personhood, everything to do with state protection of the unborn.

Personhood for the unborn is not objectively discernable; protection for the viable seems reasonable...no?

I certainly agree with 2 of the above statements. :think:

Will old 'seems reasonable' quip now debate present-day quip? :idea:

Consistent indeed...