Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[Yttrium]

If it was bogus, you could refute it.
Better yet, find me a single source that refutes it.

You're the one who insisted on the definition. You made the claim, you need to back it up.

In any case, you're arguing semantics. The definition of a "being" is fairly vague. And the refutation is pretty straightforward. If you look at an embryo before the split, it's unique at that time. It's human, because it has human DNA. It's a being. If you at the embryos after the split, they're each unique at that time. They're human, and they're beings. You don't just want them to be unique, you want them to be continuously unique through the splitting process, and that's certainly not in any definition of a human being anywhere.

 

[Mayzoo]

*Sigh*

No, she wasn't denied an abortion, because the procedure in question was not an abortion. Everyone knew this prior to Roe vs. Wade.

Moral actions that produce two effects need to be evaluated under the understanding of the principle of double effect:

1. The action must be either morally good or neutral.
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect; the bad effect can in no way be intended and must be avoided if possible.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in proportion to the bad effect.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube or in some other location. A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube and thus there exists a danger to both the life of the mother and the child.

Removing the fallopian tube is considered in accordance with the principle of double effect:

1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb was reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.

So you believe the doctors, for no reason whatsoever, decided just not to treat her and allow her to go home and die? The ER doctor at least told her to leave the state since they refused to treat her. Thankfully she had the money to do so. Other women will not.

Or do you think those in the medical profession have knowledge that you may not have that leads them to believe/know in a court of law that termination of an ectopic pregnancy will fall under the category of abortion and thus fall under the new law? That then leads them to simply decide it was too risky for them to become involved?

 

[Mayzoo]

So women aren't dying because of this, they're just having to travel out of state in the meantime. That is quite inconvenient (and I don't mean that sarcastically), but I've heard of medial procedures and even long term treatment that requires going out of state and in some cases even out of country, so it's not entirely unprecedented.

So if a woman dies due to her untreated ecotpic pregnancy, are you saying she did not die from the ectopic pregnancy that was left untreated, she died because she lacked the means to leave the state?

 

[NxNW]

You're the one who insisted on the definition. You made the claim, you need to back it up.

I already backed it up. There are no counterexamples.

In any case, you're arguing semantics. The definition of a "being" is fairly vague.

But by using "a being", you've already quantified it.

And the refutation is pretty straightforward. If you look at an embryo before the split, it's unique at that time. It's human, because it has human DNA. It's a being.

Again, based on your statements, you've already quantified it, so there is nothing to argue.

If you at the embryos after the split, they're each unique at that time.

Once again, they have been quantified. Nothing is in dispute here.

There was one. Now there are two.

Therefore we have an example of life beginning after conception.

QED.

[/quote] you want them to be continuously unique through the splitting process, and that's certainly not in any definition of a human being anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Did the second one exist before the split?

If not, then life began after conception.

 

[ottawak]

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.

But it should be troubling to anyone.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not during the first trimester, they don't.

15 weeks isn't the first Trimester, and that's where the Mississippi law is drawing the line, and it has pro-abortion advocates in a demonic rage over that.

now if you want to ban all abortions after 12 weeks unless medically necessary?

But virtually all pro abortion advocates want it up till the moment of birth for whatever reason because "my body my choice" forgetting someone else's body.

 

[Jamdoc]

Mann Act - Wikipedia

Next question?

Total strawman, that law was amended to make it only cover sex trafficking, like prostitution.

I partially agree. I think RvW was a good decision, but the legislature should have made it official decades ago, rather than expect it to stand indefinitely.

I disagree with the content of such a law, but from a purely legal standpoint.. that is more Congress' jurisdiction.
Though it is mostly state's jurisdiction to deal with crime and punishment unless it's interstate crime.

The right to keep and bear arms... Nothing in there about transportation... And since Well-regulated militias are regulated by individual states, there would be no reason to transport them... Unless North Carolina decides to invade South Carolina...

But I think we've got a National Guard to deal with that...

Well regulated in the 18th century means they had all the materials and training necessary to do their job, it did not mean what people think it means today, which is that only state operated armies have a right to bear arms, that was defended in the supreme court over a decade ago, that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It's the clauses. The right belongs to the people, not the militia, the militia is the justification for why the people have the right, and "the militia" is every armed American citizen.

Now if you move to a state and they make your guns illegal on crossing the state line, your right to KEEP those arms is being infringed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Total strawman, that law was amended to make it only cover sex trafficking, like prostitution.

Can't transport people across state lines for illegal purposes... And if abortion is illegal in your state...

You asked; I delivered; you shifted the goalposts.

I disagree with the content of such a law, but from a purely legal standpoint.. that is more Congress' jurisdiction.
Though it is mostly state's jurisdiction to deal with crime and punishment unless it's interstate crime.

"Mostly" the states jurisdiction until the go the Texas route and make it a civil offense... Then the people anywhere can sue for a shot at $10K and a pat on the head...

Laws stop at the state lines... Greed doesn't.

Well regulated in the 18th century means they had all the materials and training necessary to do their job,

Well, that rules out most of the Rambo wannabes I see prancing around in their camo outfits...

it did not mean what people think it means today, which is that only state operated armies have a right to bear arms, that was defended in the supreme court over a decade ago, that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It's the clauses. The right belongs to the people, not the militia, the militia is the justification for why the people have the right, and "the militia" is every armed American citizen.

In light of recent events, I suspect "the militia" might want to disavow at least one of its members today.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But virtually all pro abortion advocates want it up till the moment of birth for whatever reason because "my body my choice" forgetting someone else's body.

I know a lot of feminists. None of them would advocate for what you’re suggesting they would. So clearly it’s not “virtually all”. You’re creating a cartoonish straw man in order to justify your ridiculous position.

 

[chilehed]

So you believe the doctors, for no reason whatsoever, decided just not to treat her and allow her to go home and die?

How in the world did you get that nonsense from what I actually said?

 

[Yttrium]

How in the world did you get that nonsense from what I actually said?

It also seems to me that it was kind of implied in what you wrote. You gave a long reason why she wouldn't have been refused treatment because of the abortion law. And yet she was refused treatment. You gave no alternate reason why she would be refused.

 

[Mayzoo]

How in the world did you get that nonsense from what I actually said?

You stated she was not denied an abortion. That would mean this law did not come into play for their decision as this was not an abortion case.

So the doctors either had a reason to deny her life-saving services, or they had no reason to deny her life-saving services. I tend to believe doctors do not deny life-saving services for no reason.

I would imagine the doctors denied services out of fear the courts would side with this being defined as an abortion thus leaving them open to lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.

Insurance companies already tell doctors they cannot get paid for services rendered as the services were not deemed medically necessary, despite the doctor using their years of training and experience to make that decision.

Next will likely be the courts saying the abortion they performed was not medically necessary. Verdict for this plaintiff, and the next plaintiff, and the next planitff..............................................

 

[ozso]

So if a woman dies due to her untreated ecotpic pregnancy, are you saying she did not die from the ectopic pregnancy that was left untreated, she died because she lacked the means to leave the state?

No.

 

[ozso]

100 million women using birth control correctly and responsibly still means a failure rate of 1%, leading to a million unwanted pregnancies every year.

That's as good as the US can ever expect to see.

Where did you get the the 100 million statistic from?

 

[chilehed]

You gave a long reason why she wouldn't have been refused treatment because of the abortion law.

I did no such thing. I explained that the procedure she needed was not an abortion.

 

[ozso]

Erm. That's a pretty broad legal territory. Different laws can define legal personhood differently. And in fact, if Roe v Wade goes away, it will be fine for a state to define a fetus or an embryo as a person for legal purposes. (This could lead to all sorts of complicated legal issues, but that's for the states in question to deal with.)

In other words you don't know what the law actually says about it.

 

[chilehed]

You stated she was not denied an abortion.

Yes.

That would mean this law did not come into play for their decision as this was not an abortion case.

It doesn't mean that at all. Obviously their decision was influenced by what they thought the law said. That has nothing to do with the nature of the procedure in question, and in fact the law does not define it as an abortion.

 

[ozso]

How much do you care about the lives of the postborn? How much do your elected officials care?

(hint: those postborn are going to need formula... know where to score any?)

Funny how the pro-abortionists who go on about pro-life hypocrisy are being hypocrites since they don't do the things they say should be done.

 

[ozso]

Yes.

I was seeking an explanation of what you meant. I believe it goes like this; those who think abortion is murder don't want to take care of other peoples children for them. That's basically along the same lines as those who say they want to see what's happening in Ukraine stop, are hypocrites because they don't go over there to help fight the Russians.

 

[Yttrium]

In other words you don't know what the law actually says about it.

>_<

You know, I was just trying to be helpful in suggesting you use the term "human life" instead of "person" in that case. I'm not going to dig through federal and state law to needlessly debate it. If you don't believe me, that's fine.