Zone1 Should She Have Been Allowed to Terminate Her Pregnancy?

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Actually, my mistake. I was thinking of Gosnell. Tiller was the doctor you guys murdered. Tiller was harassed by the Kansas AG and cleared of false allegations.

"You guys murdered." Wow.

Fuck it, I guess if we're playing it that way, you're personally responsible for the millions of dead kids then, since scum like Gosnell and Tiller are "you guys."

Even if those were the rules, yeah, I'd much much rather be "us guys" than "you guys."

Gosnell was nothing special - you guys are all equally as bad.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Interesting. The kid has a right to life, but not the mother.

Mom's already a legal person, mom already has the protections of laws against assault, battery, robbery, rape, manslaughter, murder, hell, even non-violent things like fraud, theft, etc.

Her right to life is recognized and protected. Laws against abortion don't do anything whatsoever against her rights.

Equality would mean protecting the kid too. But bigots don't like equality, and need to be fought against.

 

[Coyote]

"You guys murdered." Wow.

Fuck it, I guess if we're playing it that way, you're personally responsible for the millions of dead kids then, since scum like Gosnell and Tiller are "you guys."

Even if those were the rules, yeah, I'd much much rather be us guys.

Oh give it a rest. You’ve said no different.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Oh give it a rest. You’ve said no different.

I don't equate every pro-abort with the abortionist scum they support.

Believing killing the innocent should be legal is terrible and contemptible.
Actually doing it means you should be thrown in the darkest dungeon and the key should be thrown away.

There is a difference of degree.

 

[Coyote]

Mom's already a legal person, mom already has the protections of laws against assault, battery, robbery, rape, manslaughter, murder, hell, even non-violent things like fraud, theft, etc.

Her right to life is recognized and protected. Laws against abortion don't do anything whatsoever against her rights.

They sure do if she can’t get medical treatment for cancer or has to be at death’s door before “emergency medical triage” occurs.

Equality would mean protecting the kid too. But bigots don't like equality, and need to be fought against.

Misogynists consider a pregnant woman to be of less value than what she carries. That’s why they support forced pregnancy on a rape victim or child victim of incest.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

They sure do if she can’t get medical treatment for cancer or has to be at death’s door before “emergency medical triage” occurs.

Completely irrelevant. Either a deliberate non-sequitur or belies just a total lack of understanding of what a right to life means.

It does not mean you get to attack other helpless innocent human beings to help yourself. It could not mean that. The fact that you think it could ever mean that buggers belief. I don’t in fact believe it. I think you just don’t give two shits about the lives or rights of others.

Misogynists consider a pregnant woman to be of less value than what she carries.

Maybe, maybe not but that’s definitely a non-sequitur.

When we find some misogynists we can ask them.

forced pregnancy

Herpaderp.

 

[martybegan]

More baseless conjecture.

More astute observations actually.

 

[martybegan]

Not exactly. It is somewhat questionable in TN’s law for example.




Radical anti-abortion people view the women’s rights as less than the fetus’.

Only questionable for those who want the law overturned entirely.

Not less, equal, and the fetus was the one with no choice on being conceived, except in rape cases, the woman had a choice before that.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

If the child is not viable and the medical staff agrees abortion is needed then do it and leave it alone.

Personally, I support abortion up to sixteen weeks, and after that, you need a medical reason or prove you were raped or incest.

 

[Road Runner]

Interesting. The kid has a right to life, but not the mother.

Although I believe that the child's life is more valuable than the mother's, I still don't like how they put that.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Although I believe that the child's life is more valuable than the mother's, I still don't like how they put that.

I disagree with you.

I certainly don’t believe either life is more valuable than the others.

All human beings have a right to life, natural and unalienable. Human moms are humans, last I checked.

This right to life does not conflict with some theoretical insane right to attack and kill innocent human beings; it can’t conflict with nonsense that cannot exist.

There is no conflict of rights.

On the one hand we have the kid’s right to life. On the other hand, we have… no rights in conflict whatsoever, only parental obligations to provide for your son or daughter, to refrain from abuse, neglect, or violate.

A parent must do this minimum to affirm the kid’s right to life.

Rights vs. nothing is not a conflict of rights. And there is no hierarchy of rights when comparing something to nothing, either. You can’t have a ranked list of one item.

 

[Road Runner]

CarsomyrPlusSix So then what if both the mother and child were expected to die but one could survive? Obviously I'd choose my child's life over my own, but would you try and force that upon the mother?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

CarsomyrPlusSix So then what if both the mother and child were expected to die but one could survive?

You save the one you can save.

Until you are faced with that situation, where only one can be saved, you continue to try to save both.

Note: this goes both ways if we’re playing theoreticals and rare events.

Example: if you have a brain dead mom on life support and enteral feeding but the kid is okay, you save the kid. Mom’s doomed, done for, acknowledged - now keep that life support running. Save the one you can save.

 

[martybegan]

If the child is not viable and the medical staff agrees abortion is needed then do it and leave it alone.

Personally, I support abortion up to sixteen weeks, and after that, you need a medical reason or prove you were raped or incest.

16 weeks covers rape and incest, and it should be for LIFE of the mother, or fetal non-viability.

 

[martybegan]

You save the one you can save.

Until you are faced with that situation, where only one can be saved, you continue to try to save both.

Note: this goes both ways if we’re playing theoreticals and rare events.

Example: if you have a brain dead mom on life support and enteral feeding but the kid is okay, you save the kid. Mom’s doomed, done for, acknowledged - now keep that life support running. Save the one you can save.

Or as their oath already says, "first do no harm"

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Or as their oath already says, "first do no harm"

Harm is only justified if you are trying to help them and the likelihood of help is at least plausible.

Chemotherapy is a good example, chemo is awful, just awful, and plenty of patients tap out and choose hospice care, no shame in that. The docs are trying to save their life and mean well, and the patients take it as long as they can, and it’s not as bad for all patients, varies a lot with drug and with the individuals taking them.

Accordingly, someone intentionally killing someone else is never going to be medicine. You are severely harming them, you have no intention of helping them whatsoever. Nonmaleficence is right out the window.

 

[martybegan]

Harm is only justified if you are trying to help them and the likelihood of help is at least plausible.

Chemotherapy is a good example, chemo is awful, just awful, and plenty of patients tap out and choose hospice care, no shame in that. The docs are trying to save their life and mean well, and the patients take it as long as they can, and it’s not as bad for all patients, varies a lot with drug and with the individuals taking them.

Accordingly, someone intentionally killing someone else is never going to be medicine. You are severely harming them, you have no intention of helping them whatsoever. Nonmaleficence is right out the window.

Cancer is a very unique situation, one that hopefully becomes less unique as treatments and drugs become less harmful due to side effects.

 

[Coyote]

Only questionable for those who want the law overturned entirely.

Questionable for a doctor who has to then prove it was life saving emergency. In other words a presumption of guilt not innocence.

Lawyer's mission: Translate Tenn.'s bewildering abortion ban

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Chloe Akers considers herself a grizzled criminal defense attorney. Until a few months ago, she didn’t spend much time thinking about abortion — for all her 39 years, abortion was not a crime, so she’d never imagined having to defend someone accused of performing one.

apnews.com

Tennessee’s law is one of the strictest in the country. It makes performing an abortion a Class C felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. There are no exceptions. This is the part that Akers has since found herself having to repeat, often eliciting raised eyebrows and deeply drawn breaths: Unlike many states’ abortions bans, including the one in Texas, this law does not explicitly exempt abortions performed to save a mother’s life.

Instead, it offers doctors an “affirmative defense.” The difference is linguistically subtle but extraordinarily meaningful in criminal law, Akers says. The law makes performing all abortions illegal. And instead of the state having to prove that the procedure was not medically necessary, the law shifts the burden to the doctor to convince a court that it was.


Physicians can be charged with a felony and 15 years in prison if they can’t convince a court.

Not less, equal, and the fetus was the one with no choice on being conceived, except in rape cases, the woman had a choice before that.

A fetus’ life and rights should be equal to the mothers. many of these laws do not have rape exceptions or they place too high a burden on the woman.

 

[Coyote]

Although I believe that the child's life is more valuable than the mother's, I still don't like how they put that.

Why does the mother’s right to life become less valued? That’s horrible when you think about it because essentially pregnancy reduces her to vessel carrying some more valued than she is.

 

[Road Runner]

Why does the mother’s right to life become less valued?

Because as sad it is she has already lived her life if hers was in jeopardy but her child hadn't gotten a chance to live at all at that point and so if her child could be saved and she could not, if she was a great mother she would choose her child's life over her own.