Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[ottawak]

More like should have taken better precautions.

And are you against people being more responsible? Do you think that since people have become increasingly less respocible and accountable, conditions in the fabric of society have gotten better or worse? Is it better to just facilitate irresponsibly and a lack of accountability and integrity?

It's funny to me that if someone gets Covid the response is that it's that person's fault for not taking better precautions. Not attending super spreaders. Not wearing a mask. Not getting vaccinated.

Yet, suggest that many/most unwanted pregnancies are the result of not taking proper precautions, that's outrageous and morally bankrupt etc.

The devil is in the details. Not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible behavior by the woman. Even if they were it's not your place to judge such things. But there are, in the pro-life movement, those who regard unwanted pregnancy as a just punishment for bad sex and those who want to move on from banning abortion to banning birth control and comprehensive sex ed--both of which reduce unwanted pregnancy. There are some who are more concerned with the sex than with the baby (and use the argument I indcated in some form or other) and it gives the whole movement a bad odor.

 

[ozso]

Well seeing that the majority of abortions are not performed due to complications such as this I would say yes. Would you kill 600,000 innocent people to save a minute percentage of that many people? That’s basically what your asking here.

Exactly. It's rather bizarre logic which dictates that the deaths of a few outweigh the deaths of a multitude.

 

[ottawak]

Well seeing that the majority of abortions are not performed due to complications such as this I would say yes. Would you kill 600,000 innocent people to save a minute percentage of that many people? That’s basically what your asking here.

No, that's wrong. You are making the assumption that questioning the protection for the life of the mother in the Texas law is some kind of scheme to undermine abortion restrictions generally. You and MMXX are both making that assumption and it is fatuous.

 

[ozso]

The devil is in the details. Not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible behavior by the woman. Even if they were it's not your place to judge such things. But there are, in the pro-life movement, those who regard unwanted pregnancy as a just punishment for bad sex and those who want to move on from banning abortion to banning birth control and comprehensive sex ed--both of which reduce unwanted pregnancy. There are some who are more concerned with the sex than with the baby (and use the argument I indcated in some form or other) and it gives the whole movement a bad odor.

Not all but most. And that's not a matter of judging, it's a matter of facts. If men and women took greater responsibility and greater precautions, there would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies, not to mention far fewer STDs. Banning abortion isn't about punishing people and other such nonsense, it's about putting an end to wholesale death mills.

 

[ottawak]

Not all but most. And that's not a matter of judging, it's a matter of facts. If men and women took greater responsibility and greater precautions, there would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies, not to mention far fewer STDs. Banning abortion isn't about punishing people and other such nonsense, it's about putting an end to wholesale death mills.

OK, so why is there so much resistance to policies which would reduce abortion?

 

[ozso]

Well, this is technically true. You're not wrong about that.

It's the nature of the life that one must take into consideration.

Seems to me that's just pretending an unborn person isn't really a person. It's just a blob. Only when birth occurs, then presto chango, the blob suddenly becomes a person.

 

[ozso]

OK, so why is there so much resistance to policies which would reduce abortion?

IDK, you tell me.

 

[Jamdoc]

Let's see how long that lasts if your Republican representatives get their way...

Very unlikely to happen, Abortion becoming a states issue I can see, but birth control and condom bans? Really unlikely.

about as unlikely as your Democrat representatives get their way and ban guns.

 

[Jamdoc]

Except it doesn't have the capacity for thought or sensory input, and has never taken a breath, and it's not counted in the census or as a dependent for tax purposes.

Fetuses move, respond to stimuli and have dreams, they are conscious and no developmental biologist knows exactly when.

 

[comana]

Well seeing that the majority of abortions are not performed due to complications such as this I would say yes. Would you kill 600,000 innocent people to save a minute percentage of that many people? That’s basically what your asking here.

No, these are separate issues. A woman seeks emergent care for what is diagnosed as an ectopic pregnancy that is unviable and potentially fatal for the mother. This woman was denied care and fortunately was able to leave the state and receive it there. It is a medical situation that should have never had a question mark but due to a very bad law she could have died. Bringing up 600,000 abortions to justify her potential death is disgusting.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not obsess over other people's sex lives?

This isn't about sex lives, it's about human lives.
Murder isn't an acceptable backup plan if your own choices result in the natural consequence of that behavior.

You know, back to the idea about comparing a fetus to a home invader (which I wholly disagree with and you'll see why in a sec)....

There was a case in my hometown some years ago where a man had had petty theft taking place on his property. So what this guy did was he set out a purse on a shelf in his garage and had motion detectors in the garage, and sat in his livingroom with a shotgun.
A teenage boy got baited into the garage, the motion detector went off, and the man burst into the garage and shot him.

Now.. you might claim, ah, the teen was uninvited on his property, it's self defense, afterall, Montana is a castle doctrine state. Right?

Well.... because the homeowner baited the victim, it didn't count as self defense, and he was convicted of first degree murder.

Judge Sentences Kaarma To 70 Years, Saying He Acted Like A 'Hunter'

70 year sentence.

Uninvited? Maybe.. but the woman certainly baited the fetus, she doesn't get to murder them, she only gets to defend herself at that point if the intruder actually is a threat to her life.

 

[Nithavela]

Lets put words in people's mouths, it's easier that way.

You are very quick to say that people put words in your mouth when you get called out for your opinions and statements.

Here's the bottom line in my opinion. Abortion laws save far more lives than cause deaths.

For example, with this statement, you have clearly shown that you think that as long as less women die than children are born because of abortion laws, the deaths are acceptable losses.

 

[Nithavela]

Well seeing that the majority of abortions are not performed due to complications such as this I would say yes. Would you kill 600,000 innocent people to save a minute percentage of that many people? That’s basically what your asking here.

And another one for the "acceptable losses" pile.

 

[ottawak]

Seems to me that's just pretending an unborn person isn't really a person. It's just a blob. Only when birth occurs, then presto chango, the blob suddenly becomes a person.

That's how it is under the law at present, even though many people, including myself, think otherwise. But you are going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already believe it that a zygote is a person.

 

[ozso]

You are very quick to say that people put words in your mouth when you get called out for your opinions and statements.

No I say that people are putting words in my mouth when they call me out on what they came up with, rather than what I actually said.

For example, with this statement, you have clearly shown that you think that as long as less women die than children are born because of abortion laws, the deaths are acceptable losses.

Nope. I said that a multitude of deaths occur via abortion, which I consider unacceptable. You took that and reworded it. Proving that you are putting words in my mouth. Unless that is you can quote me were I said "the deaths of women are acceptable losses". Do you ever rebut someone by quoting them? Or do you always just liberally paraphrase them?

 

[ozso]

That's how it is under the law at present, even though many people, including myself, think otherwise. But you are going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already believe it that a zygote is a person.

Name one person that wasn't a zygote.

 

[ottawak]

No I say that people are putting words in my mouth when they call me out on what they came up with, rather than what I actually said.



Nope. I said that a multitude of deaths occur via abortion, which I consider unacceptable. You took that and reworded it. Proving that you are putting words in my mouth. Unless that is you can quote me were I said "the deaths of women are acceptable losses". Do you ever rebut someone by quoting them? Or do you always just liberally paraphrase them?

I think part of the problem is this post, written by another.

Well seeing that the majority of abortions are not performed due to complications such as this I would say yes. Would you kill 600,000 innocent people to save a minute percentage of that many people? That’s basically what your asking here.

This poster does strongly imply that re-writing the Texas law to provide clear protection for women carrying ectopic pregnancies is tantanmount to eliminating abortion restrictons.

 

[ozso]

I think part of the problem is this post, written by another.

This poster does strongly imply that re-writing the Texas law to provide clear protection for women carrying ectopic pregnancies is tantanmount to eliminating abortion restrictons.

Have you ever considered asking him about that, rather than jumping to conclusions? In my experience you jumped to several erroneous and disparaging conclusions, rather than questioning me to get better clarification first.

While ectopic pregnancy is the subject of this thread, it's a thin slice of the pie.

 

[ozso]

No, that's wrong. You are making the assumption that questioning the protection for the life of the mother in the Texas law is some kind of scheme to undermine abortion restrictions generally. You and MMXX are both making that assumption and it is fatuous.

The life of the mother in Texas is one case out of 600,000+ abortions. Why is there only focus on this one case out of hundreds of thousands? And surely you're not claiming there's no attempt by pro-abortionists to undermine abortion restrictions.

 

[Desk trauma]

Why is there only focus on this one case out of hundreds of thousands?

Because it’s something that would have been a routine easily accessible medical procedure that now requires out of state travel due to badly written law.