- Nov 15, 2006
- 43,917
- 14,014
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Comparing the risk of bringing a normal pregnancy to term would work as would cases such as ectopic pregnancy or similar cases where continuing the pregnancy is a direct threat to the woman's health.You must define babies as a virus before you can argue that abortion is medical treatment for the good of a womans health.
No. Abortion to save a life is not contested. This is the usual strawman that all states abortionlaws accepts. You understood my point, want to argue that, or talk to yourself in your strawman. Do not have time to strawmen. Life is short. And this falls outside a womans choice also, because this falls on a doctors oath to save a life no matter what the pregnant woman says. Unless she has religious grounds for going through a pregnancy that will most likely end her life. No need for laws that docors are mandated to do, unless they want to lose their license to practice medicine. Bad strawman, very boring.Comparing the risk of bringing a normal pregnancy to term would work as would cases such as ectopic pregnancy or similar cases where continuing the pregnancy is a direct threat to the woman's health.
No. Abortion to save a life is not contested.
You understood my point, want to argue that, or talk to yourself in your strawman.
[Staff Edit] I am not entertaining it. You took out of context to make a strawman, and you do it again. Not discussing them, asked and elaborately answered. To deal with your latest dodge from your strawman, I did not say that abortion could not be classified as a medical treatment wothout being called a virus. I stated that doctors take oaths to save lives at all costs, so abortion is included in my reply. Which makes your strawman mute. You attempted to pivot it off to a non issue that none contest, bipartisan support, that will get doctors disbarred if they break, and will probably give them jailtime if they break. Not interesting to discuss the pointless outside the bounds of reality. Why do you want to discuss that?That exception was not included in the post I responded to.
I took it at face value when you posted that abortion could not be classed as medical treatment without "define babies as a virus".
[Staff Edit] I am not entertaining it. You took out of context to make a strawman, and you do it again. Not discussing them, asked and elaborately answered. To deal with your latest dodge from your strawman, I did not say that abortion could not be classified as a medical treatment wothout being called a virus. I stated that doctors take oaths to save lives at all costs, so abortion is included in my reply. Which makes your strawman mute. You attempted to pivot it off to a non issue that none contest, bipartisan support, that will get doctors disbarred if they break, and will probably give them jailtime if they break. Not interesting to discuss the pointless outside the bounds of reality. Why do you want to discuss that?