Can pro life defend their position

[Lursa]

I'd need more information ...

but no, I'm not answering you on that question as I would others - you have no interest in an honest discussion or talks. If you did? you're answer the questions asked - I have answered, waiting on you now

Oh look at you run away. Yes...abortion is about tough questions. And you refuse to answer them.

You refuse to articulate the value of human life, even tho your entire position on abortion seems based on it and now:

You wont answer a very basic question that confronts all Americans when they vote on the subject: When is it acceptable to kill the unborn, or is it ever? And why?

Is it acceptable to kill the fertilized egg? Please explain your answer. (You demanded we define human life for you) You know very well that I can and have answered that question.

 

[stealthycat]

Great, when are you going to tell us 'when it's acceptable' to kill the unborn and when it's not?
Come on, this is all related to the value that you refuse to quantify.

you define it, you tell us, you're absolutely fascinated with it

Where? I saw you source info that said most people value human life. That value isnt quantified and it's not specified for the unborn. That is up to you...for your argument on this subject. Right? Yes or no?

you tell me, yes or no ?

Yeah, I did. Now you articulate your value for human life. Then answer my question about about "when" it's acceptable to kill that unborn...if it ever is. And why/why not, based on "your personal value."

I would have once said ban abortions in all cases but health of mother, rape and incest and in the process banned 97% or more all abortions AND preserved those 3 instances for rare cases ... you changed my mind on that and I think now ban all abortions. So thank you for that, I should never have tried to compromise

Now you - when it is acceptable to kill an unborn in your opinion? partial birth ? 10 minutes before? 1 day before? If a man punches a woman and kills her unborn, no biggie right? Should we remove all laws on women abusing alcohol and drugs during pregnancy? I mean if the unborn has no value, NOBODY should value it then, right ??? There has to be a consistency, right ?

 

[stealthycat]

Well. It’s a long rambling start.
Okay. So let’s start with you think the mother has value.

its not a "think" - of course the mothers have value

Great. So these abortion laws are CAUSING THESE MOTHERS TO DIE..

no, they're not "causing" - there are exceptionally rare cases where a pregnancy threatens the life of a mother that's true. The "cause" is the woman getting pregnant to begin with. Its something every woman should consider before sex, its not to be taken lightly.

These are women who WANT to have babies.
But had a miscarriage and an unviable fetus that still had a heartbeat. Because of the abortion law. They could not have the miscarriage removed until the heartbeat was gone. So the women suffered without timely care and then got infected and died.

exceptionally rare

This is a direct result of the anti abortion laws you support.

but if we take the pro-abortion view that unborn's have no value, they're disposable, not living humans anyway then insurance companies and hospitals can deny millions of women health care - why not? the unborn's don't matter anyway right? imagine the damages if that happened ? and yes, I know those cares are for the mother too, but if the unborn is harmed, the pregnancy is harmed and thus the mother too

so what your side REALLY wants is to demand everyone recognize and value and protect the unborns UNLESS the woman says not to - and that is hypocritical and inconsistent

In addition I’ve shown that since these laws not only has maternal death increased , so has infant death .. in addition the rate of abortion has increased.
So I guess the question is.. if you value life.
Why do you support laws that increase maternal death , increase abortion ,and increase fetal death?

I think you're very confused with this laws results in that and that.

 

[stealthycat]

Oh look at you run away. Yes...abortion is about tough questions. And you refuse to answer them.

I will answer all when you do

end of story

 

[Gordy327]

laws are subjective?

What laws establish "value?"

religious and social views and biology are not quantifiable? of course they are

Religious views are irrelevant. WHat does biology say about vlaue or abortion? Be specific!

give me your value of life then

Why? It's not my assertion or argument.

I agree

Then citing laws regarding value is invalid if value is not specified.

then you admit to being dishonest and have no interest in a discussion. You want to be able to pick apart other people's beliefs and views but you won't give your views for fear I will do the same to yours. Makes me wonder just how unconventional your belief system really is

Projection! Especially since I made no mention of my beliefs nor does my argument incorporate them.

but you'll never show us, will you? define the value of life - you desperately demand it of everyone else, I gave a very long post on my views

I think its fair you do the same, don't you ?

See Second statement!

explain what value of life means to you - I've answered that question

All you offered is your own feelings or beliefs of what value is. Nothing objective or concrete.

then you didn't read the posts

go back, read again

You first! You haven't established value beyond mere opinion. You even agreed the law does not establish or quantify value.

Now you - when it is acceptable to kill an unborn in your opinion? partial birth ? 10 minutes before? 1 day before?

Yes.

If a man punches a woman and kills her unborn, no biggie right?

That is battery against the woman.

Should we remove all laws on women abusing alcohol and drugs during pregnancy?

Yes.

I mean if the unborn has no value, NOBODY should value it then, right ??? There has to be a consistency, right ?

What's it's value? Establish that first. If a state allows abortion, then clearly the does not value the unborn, correct?

 

[Gordy327]

I will answer all when you do

end of story

Another cowardly dodge noted.

 

[Lursa]

you define it, you tell us, you're absolutely fascinated with it

I have, many times. Abortion is acceptable when ever the woman decides she needs it.

Now you.

you tell me, yes or no ?

That value isnt quantified and it's not specified for the unborn. That is up to you...for your argument on this subject. Right? Yes or no?

I would have once said ban abortions in all cases but health of mother, rape and incest and in the process banned 97% or more all abortions AND preserved those 3 instances for rare cases ... you changed my mind on that and I think now ban all abortions. So thank you for that, I should never have tried to compromise

I dont care...you are still just spouting dogma and your feelings...you have provided no coherent argument to support it...you cannot even articulate your value for human life and are dodging direct questions like a cat with its tail on fire.

Maybe you believe in unicorns too...who knows? You'd only have your feelings to post.

Now you - when it is acceptable to kill an unborn in your opinion? partial birth ? 10 minutes before? 1 day before? If a man punches a woman and kills her unborn, no biggie right? Should we remove all laws on women abusing alcohol and drugs during pregnancy? I mean if the unborn has no value, NOBODY should value it then, right ??? There has to be a consistency, right ?

I just did, above, as I have a hundred times on this forum. The woman's right to consent to her life and rights ALWAYS supersede the life of the unborn. Because altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more.

The fact that you asked again is just more avoidance...how could you possibly have missed it? If you want more details, you'll have to provide the most basic of answers that would support YOUR "argument."

 

[stealthycat]

What laws establish "value?"

Religious views are irrelevant. WHat does biology say about vlaue or abortion? Be specific!

Why? It's not my assertion or argument.

Then citing laws regarding value is invalid if value is not specified.

Projection! Especially since I made no mention of my beliefs nor does my argument incorporate them.


See Second statement!

All you offered is your own feelings or beliefs of what value is. Nothing objective or concrete.

You first! You haven't established value beyond mere opinion. You even agreed the law does not establish or quantify value.

Yes.

That is battery against the woman.

Yes.

What's it's value? Establish that first. If a state allows abortion, then clearly the does not value the unborn, correct?

sorry Gordy - same for you .... when you answer questions I asked, I'll answer yours. Your game like Lursa's is over for me. Thank you

 

[Gordy327]

sorry Gordy - same for you .... when you answer questions I asked, I'll answer yours. Your game like Lursa's is over for me. Thank you

You first! You never answered the questions what is the value of life and what does biology havevto do with abortion or value. You're just all over the place with value, life, biology, and whatever, but cannot seem to articulate your position with anything of substance. Then you run & hide when pressed and try to turn the argument around. It's both cowardly and dishonest!

 

[jaeger19]

its not a "think" - of course the mothers have value


no, they're not "causing" - there are exceptionally rare cases where a pregnancy threatens the life of a mother that's true. The "cause" is the woman getting pregnant to begin with. Its something every woman should consider before sex, its not to be taken lightly.



exceptionally rare



but if we take the pro-abortion view that unborn's have no value, they're disposable, not living humans anyway then insurance companies and hospitals can deny millions of women health care - why not? the unborn's don't matter anyway right? imagine the damages if that happened ? and yes, I know those cares are for the mother too, but if the unborn is harmed, the pregnancy is harmed and thus the mother too

so what your side REALLY wants is to demand everyone recognize and value and protect the unborns UNLESS the woman says not to - and that is hypocritical and inconsistent



I think you're very confused with this laws results in that and that.

1. Wait. So your thought is that woman shouldn’t get pregnant then if they don’t want to die?
These women wanted to have a child and unfortunately they had a miscarriage but because of the law .. they could not have a timely procedure done to save their life.

It seems you are saying that the death of the women who had miscarriages was on them .
Even though if they had lived in a state without an anti abortion law they would have lived.

How do you reconcile that with your belief that woman lives have value??

That position seems very much at odds with a belief in mothers lives having value.

Please explain.

2. But happening. How does a woman’s life have value if your response to her death is “. Well it’s rare” ???

3. Wait. So you are arguing that if there is no value to the “ unborn” then hospitals won’t provide care to the unborn ?
Or to the insurance companies??

wtf are you talking about? Roe v Wade was in place for decades . Can you point to hospitals or insurance companies refusing care for the unborn despite the families wish for care?

4. No that seems consistent with ethics and personal choice.

Tell me.. do you feel if your wife or mother was in a terrible accident and they were suffering on life support with zero chance of recovery but just existing in pain. Do you think the physicians should do everything possible to prolong life despite their wishes or yours ( if you speak for them) knowing that it’s just going to prolong suffering?
Do you think you should make that decision for my wife and my mother?

3. Well I have cited the results of the law and the decisions that medical providers had to make because of these laws. I also cited the Texas attorney general on his view of the law and the fact he would prosecute doctors that removed an unviable fetus from a woman if it had a heartbeat. Despite the fact not doing so increased her risk of death.

You are of course welcome to educate me on how these laws work in th real world . I am a medical provider.

So if a woman comes into the hospital with a miscarriage that’s not viable but has a heartbeat. How am I to treat her without fear of being prosecuted ?

 

[jaeger19]

You are no conservative at all. I am anti all religions and prolife but in the case you described, which is an extreme outlier, very few pro lifers would insist she have the baby. We are talking about adults who don't take personal responsibility to get birth control, make sure the man wears a condom or abstain if he doesn't.

You know this and as usual submit the most outlandish circumstance as the norm. Change your political lean please.

Umm… so you think the government should make this vital decision that could cause her death because. “ it’s rare” ?

Please explain how government makes this decision is consistent with “ small government”
.

 

[stealthycat]

1. Wait. So your thought is that woman shouldn’t get pregnant then if they don’t want to die?
These women wanted to have a child and unfortunately they had a miscarriage but because of the law .. they could not have a timely procedure done to save their life.

It seems you are saying that the death of the women who had miscarriages was on them .
Even though if they had lived in a state without an anti abortion law they would have lived.

How do you reconcile that with your belief that woman lives have value??

That position seems very much at odds with a belief in mothers lives having value.

Please explain.

you are talking a very exceptional few cases - I'd have to know the details of each

I think you and I both know though that 97% or more of abortions are convenience .... its not rape, its not incest and its not mothers health. I used to believe in those exceptions

2. But happening. How does a woman’s life have value if your response to her death is “. Well it’s rare” ???

you are talking a very exceptional few cases - I'd have to know the details of each

3. Wait. So you are arguing that if there is no value to the “ unborn” then hospitals won’t provide care to the unborn ?
Or to the insurance companies??

wtf are you talking about? Roe v Wade was in place for decades . Can you point to hospitals or insurance companies refusing care for the unborn despite the families wish for care?

IF there is no value to unborn life, if its meaningless to be thrown away at the whim of the woman, then why can't a hospital deny care or insurance companies? Maybe THEY don't see the value in that unborn or that pregnancy. See what I mean ? Hospitals and Insurance companies have always show that's not true - so there is an inconsistency

either the unborn is deserving of life or it isn't - which is it ?

4. No that seems consistent with ethics and personal choice.

then a hospital and insurances and the man/fahter should have personal choices too - right ? and if their choices are that the unborn isn't valuable of deserving of life, it should be respected, right ?

no - nobody believes that

Tell me.. do you feel if your wife or mother was in a terrible accident and they were suffering on life support with zero chance of recovery but just existing in pain. Do you think the physicians should do everything possible to prolong life despite their wishes or yours ( if you speak for them) knowing that it’s just going to prolong suffering?
Do you think you should make that decision for my wife and my mother?

are we making hypotheticals now? because I can create them too. Like I said, I was always ok with rape/incest/health of mother as a compromise - Lursa has driven me to reconsider than and agree with banning all abortions. I wish a compromise would have been made - saving 97% or more of all killed babies and allowed the 3% of deaths for incest/rape/health of mother but neither side wanted that compromise

3. Well I have cited the results of the law and the decisions that medical providers had to make because of these laws. I also cited the Texas attorney general on his view of the law and the fact he would prosecute doctors that removed an unviable fetus from a woman if it had a heartbeat. Despite the fact not doing so increased her risk of death.

You are of course welcome to educate me on how these laws work in th real world . I am a medical provider.

So if a woman comes into the hospital with a miscarriage that’s not viable but has a heartbeat. How am I to treat her without fear of being prosecuted ?

again I would need to know all the details and you're talking about the exceptional cases


you want to give me stroke of pen law of land? do it - give it to me and I'll make it incest/rape can have abortions with some conditions to assure they're not lying and health of mother with again reasonable conditions. I'd save 97% of all unborn's being killed at the cost of 3% being killed

yes, I'd still do it, and I don't care if pro-life hates me and if pro-abortion hates me ..... that's what I'd do


how would you do it ? allow women to abort all the way up until delivery?

 

[stealthycat]

Umm… so you think the government should make this vital decision that could cause her death because. “ it’s rare” ?

Please explain how government makes this decision is consistent with “ small government”
.

its not a perfect world

extreme exceptions shouldn't ever be the thing that creates laws and rules

 

[Lursa]

you are talking a very exceptional few cases - I'd have to know the details of each

I think you and I both know though that 97% or more of abortions are convenience .... its not rape, its not incest and its not mothers health. I used to believe in those exceptions

you are talking a very exceptional few cases - I'd have to know the details of each

So what laws are you proposing that will cover women in those "exceptional few cases?" "Tough shit, it's rare, you drew the short straw?"

We're seeing that now and we're seeing it's not that rare. If it was, women wouldnt be bleeding out in parking lots, traveling to other states while bleeding and in pain, and having ERs ignore them right up until they're about to die while they suffer, waiting, or actually dying.

IF there is no value to unborn life, if its meaningless to be thrown away at the whim of the woman, then why can't a hospital deny care or insurance companies? Maybe THEY don't see the value in that unborn or that pregnancy. See what I mean ? Hospitals and Insurance companies have always show that's not true - so there is an inconsistency

Well that's a big failure. They are providing care for the woman. At her request and consent. If she requests fetal surgery to treat the unborn, they'll assist. If she doesnt, no one else can consent to that surgery to save it.

And that 'insurance' wont stop her from aborting it and it will cover her if she has complications from the abortion.

 

[jaeger19]

you are talking a very exceptional few cases - I'd have to know the details of each

I think you and I both know though that 97% or more of abortions are convenience .... its not rape, its not incest and its not mothers health. I used to believe in those exceptions




you are talking a very exceptional few cases - I'd have to know the details of each


IF there is no value to unborn life, if its meaningless to be thrown away at the whim of the woman, then why can't a hospital deny care or insurance companies? Maybe THEY don't see the value in that unborn or that pregnancy. See what I mean ? Hospitals and Insurance companies have always show that's not true - so there is an inconsistency

either the unborn is deserving of life or it isn't - which is it ?



then a hospital and insurances and the man/fahter should have personal choices too - right ? and if their choices are that the unborn isn't valuable of deserving of life, it should be respected, right ?

no - nobody believes that




are we making hypotheticals now? because I can create them too. Like I said, I was always ok with rape/incest/health of mother as a compromise - Lursa has driven me to reconsider than and agree with banning all abortions. I wish a compromise would have been made - saving 97% or more of all killed babies and allowed the 3% of deaths for incest/rape/health of mother but neither side wanted that compromise




again I would need to know all the details and you're talking about the exceptional cases


you want to give me stroke of pen law of land? do it - give it to me and I'll make it incest/rape can have abortions with some conditions to assure they're not lying and health of mother with again reasonable conditions. I'd save 97% of all unborn's being killed at the cost of 3% being killed

yes, I'd still do it, and I don't care if pro-life hates me and if pro-abortion hates me ..... that's what I'd do


how would you do it ? allow women to abort all the way up until delivery?

1. Sure . Let’s discuss this.

A Texas Woman Died After Waiting 40 Hours for Miscarriage Care

Josseli Barnica is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed emergency care. She’d told her husband that the medical team said it couldn’t act until the fetal heartbeat stopped.

www.propublica.org

2. Well you have to define convenience. See I don’t see pregnancy as just an inconvenience.
Woman , even before these anti abortion laws died in child birth in the us. I think relatively recently we hit a high of 1200 or so.
Then there are all the women women who suffer blood clots , stroke, pulmonary embolism , paralysis. Loss of work, financial hardship. Decreased ability to care for other children or elderly adults.that happens with “ normal” pregnancy.

I don’t see pregnancy as “just an inconvenience” so I don’t see an abortion so that a woman doesn’t place her children into poverty just “ for convenience”

3. I don’t see an inconsistency. Hospitals treat the unborn or children for that matter at the wishes of their customer.
Just like their customer can decide they don’t want care. Or if they are unable to decide.. the family makes the decision for them.

Treatment isn’t based on some determination of “value of life” .

4. See above.

5. Ummmm. You didn’t answer my question .try to be honest.
Tell me.. do you feel if your wife or mother was in a terrible accident and they were suffering on life support with zero chance of recovery but just existing in pain. Do you think the physicians should do everything possible to prolong life despite their wishes or yours ( if you speak for them) knowing that it’s just going to prolong suffering?
Do you think you should make that decision for my wife and my mother?

Why won’t you answer this?
If value of life is the consideration should physicians do everything to keep the person alive regardless of their wishes or their families wishes?

No diversions.. be honest.

6. Except the laws are killing mothers who want to have kids. They are causing infant deaths and they have INCREASED the abortion rate.
So you aren’t saving any lives . These laws resulting in more deaths.

and yet you are fine with the idea that you will decide my wife’s life , or my daughters , isn’t worth an embryo.

Who are you to make that decision?

6. And back again we are to the old “ allow women to abort up to birth”?

When has that happened? We had decades of abortion with little restriction. We still have states with little or no restriction and yet.. no babies being aborted up to delivery.

Please explain.

Meanwhile .women are actually dying from anti abortion laws.
Abortion rates have increased ,and infant deaths have increased.

Please explain.

 

[jaeger19]

its not a perfect world

extreme exceptions shouldn't ever be the thing that creates laws and rules

You mean like? “allow women to abort all the way up until delivery?“ lmao

So your answer to laws that increase women’s deaths infants deaths and increases the abortion rate is
“ it’s not a perfect world”

Please explain.

 

[soylentgreen]

you're not wrong


again I don't really disagree




ahh but there's the problem

first, we're not talking about a vase or inanimate object or even an animal - we are talking about human life

No, we are not talking just about a human life. We are talking about the value we give to that life.

give me one law in the USA where a living human can have another innocent living human killed - we don't have one, not a single one, do we? We can discuss the many many layers of laws that we have to protect human life, right? and we can all pretty much agree they're there for a reason - human life is protected and for what reason? because its valuable. Heck Democrats fight hard to protect the lives of murderers - the absolutely worst humans we have in this country and their lives (to a liberal) is so valuable they'll fight hard to stop death row. Biden just literally did that very thing.

Easy enough. Where abortion is still legal in america you have a law that aborts a human life.

So, laws/legal absolutely shows human life has value. However, as Gordy and others have said, if laws were changed today and abortion banned, they'd not change their views with the laws - which means how they value human life has nothing to do with legal/lawful. Me? I think it actually DOES give evidence but its also not the sole reason.

Human life does have value. But value itself has no meaning other than what any one individual gives to it.

We can discuss religion too. Quick google will tell us -

General consensus: Most major religions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, generally promote the value of human life and respect for human dignity as a core tenet

No again. The abrahamic religions only value the life of men. Women can be killed for the merest disrespect to a man and a child is just property to be beaten into submission.

As a believer in Christ Jesus and Christianity, I am included in the above. However, an atheist? Maybe they have no morality rooted in religion. Maybe they think they can create morality and goodness on their own? If that's true, then a person who believed anyone under the age of 12 months isnt valuable and thus killing it is ok ...... nobody could argue they're wrong in that belief. Right ? and yet, I'd bet 99.99% of the people in the USA wouldn't go for killing infants.

Being a christian does not make anyone a good person. Having empathy and being altruistic towards others does. And no religion is needed for that.

So its not legal/lawful that makes human life valuable for Gordy and Lursa and it can't be religion either I don't think. So what IS it ?

The only thing that gives value to human life is what any one person thinks of that life.

I don't have to define it. What I can tell everyone is this.

A 1 minute old baby is protected by layers of laws in the USA and nearly every person would say/believe that 1 minute old baby is deserving of life. Call it valuable, use the word deserving, even protected .... but we can pretty much ALL agree to it.

That baby 1 minute before birth? Same baby, just unborn vs born. Yes, its a difference however, its literally the same living human - undeniable and its literally biology.

Yet now we find that babies are being dumped in rubbish bins in america. What value did they have to the person who dumped them?
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/i-team-investigates-increase-texas-newborn-abandonments/

Every year newborn babies are abandoned across the country. Left in plastic bags and parking lots, or worse, the little ones wait for someone to come to their rescue.

Can we agree on that ?

No, Because biology does not pretend to give every single person a reason to value a child. Many people would gladly live their whole lives never once considering having a child. And value itself is not biological. It is a learned behaviour.

 

[stealthycat]

1. Sure . Let’s discuss this.

A Texas Woman Died After Waiting 40 Hours for Miscarriage Care

Josseli Barnica is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed emergency care. She’d told her husband that the medical team said it couldn’t act until the fetal heartbeat stopped.

www.propublica.org

what I would ask is if she was in delivery - why didn't they deliver the baby? why wasn't prenatal care given ? the unborn was alive when she went in, why wasn't anything done? I have a lot of questions on how all that went, because she didn't go for an abortion, she went for a medical emergency on her unborn baby and her pregnancy

2. Well you have to define convenience. See I don’t see pregnancy as just an inconvenience.
Woman , even before these anti abortion laws died in child birth in the us. I think relatively recently we hit a high of 1200 or so.
Then there are all the women women who suffer blood clots , stroke, pulmonary embolism , paralysis. Loss of work, financial hardship. Decreased ability to care for other children or elderly adults.that happens with “ normal” pregnancy.

I don’t see pregnancy as “just an inconvenience” so I don’t see an abortion so that a woman doesn’t place her children into poverty just “ for convenience”

pregnancy is a big thing - people should have sex understanding that

3. I don’t see an inconsistency. Hospitals treat the unborn or children for that matter at the wishes of their customer.
Just like their customer can decide they don’t want care. Or if they are unable to decide.. the family makes the decision for them.

Treatment isn’t based on some determination of “value of life” .

that didn't happen with Josseli Barnica

4. See above.

5. Ummmm. You didn’t answer my question .try to be honest.
Tell me.. do you feel if your wife or mother was in a terrible accident and they were suffering on life support with zero chance of recovery but just existing in pain. Do you think the physicians should do everything possible to prolong life despite their wishes or yours ( if you speak for them) knowing that it’s just going to prolong suffering?
Do you think you should make that decision for my wife and my mother?

what if scenario's with life and death are fine - but they don't change that there will be laws allowing or banning killing of innocent human life

my ex and I had an agreement to never abort - even if her life was at risk

Why won’t you answer this?
If value of life is the consideration should physicians do everything to keep the person alive regardless of their wishes or their families wishes?

No diversions.. be honest.

its not a yes or no - its why we have stacks of laws that attempt to cover many situations

again, talking about Josseli Barnica the doctors appear to not have given prenatal care/emergency care to the living unborn and to the mother. Pro-abortion people could argue the doctors and hospitals didn't recognize it as a living unborn child/baby and that it wasn't valuable and thus they saw no reason to protect it? I dunno, its not my belief but theirs. I question why the unborn wasn't given healthcare

As Abortion Law Misinformation Looms, Save the Storks Sets the Facts Straight - Save the Storks

ProPublica's latest story spreads misinformation about abortion laws. We're here to set the facts straight.

savethestorks.com

A doctor did not take proper care of Josseli Barnica – that medical malpractice is what caused her death, not abortion restriction laws.”

watch the video

Loading…

v45.tiktokcdn-us.com

 

[stealthycat]

6. Except the laws are killing mothers who want to have kids. They are causing infant deaths and they have INCREASED the abortion rate.
So you aren’t saving any lives . These laws resulting in more deaths.

and yet you are fine with the idea that you will decide my wife’s life , or my daughters , isn’t worth an embryo.

Who are you to make that decision?

that appears untrue

6. And back again we are to the old “ allow women to abort up to birth”?

When has that happened? We had decades of abortion with little restriction. We still have states with little or no restriction and yet.. no babies being aborted up to delivery.

Please explain.

Meanwhile .women are actually dying from anti abortion laws.
Abortion rates have increased ,and infant deaths have increased.

Please explain.

I thought it was a yes or no answer ?

 

[stealthycat]

No, we are not talking just about a human life. We are talking about the value we give to that life.

can you define that value ?

Easy enough. Where abortion is still legal in america you have a law that aborts a human life.

I mean any other laws - if human life isn't valued, we should have several examples of innocent human life being able to be killed, right ? yet every law PROTECTS innocent human life doesn't it? except abortion ones

Human life does have value. But value itself has no meaning other than what any one individual gives to it.

you sure?

so if you value a person life and I don't - if its valuable to you and it isn't to me - then you would protect it and I wouldn't right? I wouldn't care at all if it died - it has no value or meaning to me

that's how we should be, as human beings and in our society ? you really think that's how it should be ?

No again. The abrahamic religions only value the life of men. Women can be killed for the merest disrespect to a man and a child is just property to be beaten into submission.

that sounds Muslim to me

Being a christian does not make anyone a good person. Having empathy and being altruistic towards others does. And no religion is needed for that.

claiming to be doesn't - BEING one does

The only thing that gives value to human life is what any one person thinks of that life.

of then in a situation where I have the power to save a life you think is valuable and I do not, me not acting and allowing that worthless life to die would be ok. It means nothing to me, it has no value, right ?

are serial killers wrong?

Yet now we find that babies are being dumped in rubbish bins in america. What value did they have to the person who dumped them?
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/i-team-investigates-increase-texas-newborn-abandonments/

well for most, the women are haunted and mentally carry those things for a lifetime ... for those who really don't care? they're like serial killers - life has little meaning and I think most agree that's not normal

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/i-team-investigates-increase-texas-newborn-abandonments/

No, Because biology does not pretend to give every single person a reason to value a child. Many people would gladly live their whole lives never once considering having a child. And value itself is not biological. It is a learned behaviour.

back the question - you REALLY think 1 minute before birth baby is a different human life than 1 minute before birth ? that makes zero sense - it literally IS the same

 

[jaeger19]

what I would ask is if she was in delivery - why didn't they deliver the baby? why wasn't prenatal care given ? the unborn was alive when she went in, why wasn't anything done? I have a lot of questions on how all that went, because she didn't go for an abortion, she went for a medical emergency on her unborn baby and her pregnancy



pregnancy is a big thing - people should have sex understanding that



that didn't happen with Josseli Barnica


what if scenario's with life and death are fine - but they don't change that there will be laws allowing or banning killing of innocent human life

my ex and I had an agreement to never abort - even if her life was at risk



its not a yes or no - its why we have stacks of laws that attempt to cover many situations

again, talking about Josseli Barnica the doctors appear to not have given prenatal care/emergency care to the living unborn and to the mother. Pro-abortion people could argue the doctors and hospitals didn't recognize it as a living unborn child/baby and that it wasn't valuable and thus they saw no reason to protect it? I dunno, its not my belief but theirs. I question why the unborn wasn't given healthcare

As Abortion Law Misinformation Looms, Save the Storks Sets the Facts Straight - Save the Storks

ProPublica's latest story spreads misinformation about abortion laws. We're here to set the facts straight.

savethestorks.com

A doctor did not take proper care of Josseli Barnica – that medical malpractice is what caused her death, not abortion restriction laws.”

watch the video

Loading…

v45.tiktokcdn-us.com

1. When she went to the hospital she was bleeding because she had a miscarriage and the fetus was non viable her body had tried to expel it but stopped or got stuck with the fetus up against her cervix. However the fetus still had a heartbeat.
The medically necessary procedure would be to induce further expulsion but this would stop the heart beat. Or to do a d and e to remove the fetus which again would stop the heartbeat.
Under Texas law. Since though the fetus was non viable but still had a heartbeat.. the doctors could not proceed with medically indicated treatment. They had to wait until the heartbeat stopped. However that wait increases the risk of infection and sepsis.
Because of Texas law.. the doctors waited until the fetus didn’t have a heartbeat and removed the fetus. Unfortunately the wait caused an infection and she died a couple of days later from sepsis.

2. They do. That’s why being able to end a pregnancy isn’t a matter of convenience.
Sorry but I don’t buy your argument that a married couple should never have sex again after they have the kids they think they can have safely and responsibly.
Or that a woman who wants to get pregnant but has a medical issue where the pregnancy is killing her should have to die because you don’t think she should have sex .

3. That’s right. The medical care she needed was delayed because of Texas law. Texas law prevented the medical staff from providing the timely care she needed

4. Those laws shouldn’t come at the expense of more lives lost.. remember more abortions , more infant deaths and more

5. But you want to make it a yes or no.
We don’t have a stack of laws telling physicians what they can or must do in these end of life decisions. It’s up to the patient and family if they want extraordinary measures or not. Or if they even want any intervention.

6. The doctors could not give the timely care to Barnica because the fetus had a heart beat and Barnica was not in medical emergency . She was stable medically.
Under Texas law. Since the fetus had a heartbeat they could not extract it nor induce it because Barnica was not in a medical emergency. Her vitals were stable.
There was no “ treatment for the unborn “ as it wasn’t viable. It wasn’t capable of living it simply had a heartbeat.

The video is wrong because Barnica was not in an emergency situation as the law requires.

 

[jaeger19]

that appears untrue



I thought it was a yes or no answer ?

1. No it’s very true as I explained.

2 . You are the one that wants the law to tell the medical community and patients “ yes or no” .
And appears to be based in part on the mythical “ abortions just before delivery”.

 

[soylentgreen]

can you define that value ?

No one can because it is an illusion. It comes under the category of , " I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."

I mean any other laws - if human life isn't valued, we should have several examples of innocent human life being able to be killed, right ? yet every law PROTECTS innocent human life doesn't it? except abortion ones

And that is the unfortunate result of the stupidity of a religion that commands human life is sacred. But in countries that ignore such foolishness laws about assisted suicide and the right to die with dignity exist.

you sure?

so if you value a person life and I don't - if its valuable to you and it isn't to me - then you would protect it and I wouldn't right? I wouldn't care at all if it died - it has no value or meaning to me

that's how we should be, as human beings and in our society ? you really think that's how it should be ?

This is why society does have laws. To give a common consensus of what we value. But otherwise we still have things like murder because value is still just a personal opinion.

that sounds Muslim to me

The bible commands women to submit to their man. It commands a man should beat a child if unruly. Only men are of value in the bible. children and women are mere chattle.

claiming to be doesn't - BEING one does

You cannot be one unless you have the ability to understand both empathy and altruism to others. And for that no one needs a bible.

of then in a situation where I have the power to save a life you think is valuable and I do not, me not acting and allowing that worthless life to die would be ok. It means nothing to me, it has no value, right ?

are serial killers wrong?

As I pointed out. If you lack empathy for others then their life does not matter to you. It is a condition also known as being a sociopath.

well for most, the women are haunted and mentally carry those things for a lifetime ... for those who really don't care? they're like serial killers - life has little meaning and I think most agree that's not normal

Have you stopped to think that perhaps it is not that they do not value life but that their religion teaches them that the shame they bring to their family will be more important than the life they throw away.
https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-alm...Alma identified,Holy Ghost as abominable sins.

With this declaration, Alma identified for Corianton the three most abominable sins in the sight of God: (1) denying the Holy Ghost, (2) shedding innocent blood, and (3) committing sexual sin.

back the question - you REALLY think 1 minute before birth baby is a different human life than 1 minute before birth ? that makes zero sense - it literally IS the same

No I do not and that is what I have argued. In a delivery room no one is saying a fetus is about to be born. It is a baby that is about to be born. I would argue that there is a big difference between the anti abortionists emotional pleading that a fetus is a baby and the emotional needs of a woman about to give birth to see her child as a baby during the pregnancy.
My argument has been that those who wish to ban abortion could not care less about the child or the woman. They only want to enforce their own ideology on others and screw the consequences. Those on the pro choice side can also fall into the trap of not caring if they only are concerned with the science of biology in their arguments. We are not vulcans. Emotions play a strong part in a pregnancy and we would all do well to acknowledge the role emotions play in a pregnancy..

 

[stealthycat]

1. When she went to the hospital she was bleeding because she had a miscarriage and the fetus was non viable her body had tried to expel it but stopped or got stuck with the fetus up against her cervix. However the fetus still had a heartbeat.
The medically necessary procedure would be to induce further expulsion but this would stop the heart beat. Or to do a d and e to remove the fetus which again would stop the heartbeat.
Under Texas law. Since though the fetus was non viable but still had a heartbeat.. the doctors could not proceed with medically indicated treatment. They had to wait until the heartbeat stopped. However that wait increases the risk of infection and sepsis.
Because of Texas law.. the doctors waited until the fetus didn’t have a heartbeat and removed the fetus. Unfortunately the wait caused an infection and she died a couple of days later from sepsis.

Miscarriage​

Miscarriage is when a baby dies in womb before 20 weeks of pregnancy. Know the signs and symptoms of miscarriage, risk factors for it and how to cope with ...


what you are describing and what happened isn't that - sounds like a an early delivery - her body went into labor - the unborn was alive

2. They do. That’s why being able to end a pregnancy isn’t a matter of convenience.
Sorry but I don’t buy your argument that a married couple should never have sex again after they have the kids they think they can have safely and responsibly.
Or that a woman who wants to get pregnant but has a medical issue where the pregnancy is killing her should have to die because you don’t think she should have sex .

that's escaping responsibility - no different than the man saying "I didn't want it" and escaping all his financial responsibility or a woman with a 1 day old deciding its too much and having that 1 day old killed

3. That’s right. The medical care she needed was delayed because of Texas law. Texas law prevented the medical staff from providing the timely care she needed

I disagree - sounds like medical malpractice - hospitals make mistakes, doctors make erros

4. Those laws shouldn’t come at the expense of more lives lost.. remember more abortions , more infant deaths and more

5. But you want to make it a yes or no.
We don’t have a stack of laws telling physicians what they can or must do in these end of life decisions. It’s up to the patient and family if they want extraordinary measures or not. Or if they even want any intervention.

we don't ? doctors don't act to save lives until they get permissions?

you mean if a man bleeding out from a wound goes to an ER and cannot give permission for treatment and no family is present he just goes untreated? c'mon

6. The doctors could not give the timely care to Barnica because the fetus had a heart beat and Barnica was not in medical emergency .

then it wasn't a miscarriage

She was stable medically.
Under Texas law. Since the fetus had a heartbeat they could not extract it nor induce it because Barnica was not in a medical emergency. Her vitals were stable.
There was no “ treatment for the unborn “ as it wasn’t viable. It wasn’t capable of living it simply had a heartbeat.

The video is wrong because Barnica was not in an emergency situation as the law requires.

I disagree

they don't know if the unborn was viable - it wasn't dead in the womb and it wasn't delivered either

in fact the way that hospital/doctors botched that whole thing I'd not trust anything that was reported on this story


so we're going to have to disagree ... I know pro-abortion people have screamed "but look but look !!" and I did and I'm not seeing what you see. I see a gross negligence by hospitals/doctors to treat a pregnancy in trouble, to treat an unborn with a heartbeat and a mother with complications. Its a very sad story, the doctors were better than that, the hospital was too

 

[stealthycat]

1. No it’s very true as I explained.

2 . You are the one that wants the law to tell the medical community and patients “ yes or no” .
And appears to be based in part on the mythical “ abortions just before delivery”.

I've never said that really, no

I 100% support health care for women and unborn babies

Killing the unborn isn't health care, its killing