Curious, most "pro-lifers" say they support abortion if a woman's life was threatened

It has to be investigated based on sombody and show that he is violating the law about pharmaceuticals. But how do you investigate....his medical opinion? How do you say "I think his judgement was wrong....he thinks he was right....I, some Womb Cop, can prove I know more about his patient than HE does"???

So you just admitted that there are cases where you would just "give up" and let abortions occur because they would be "hard to prove".

BTW, you won't mind that rich or middle class women would almost never be prosecuted or even COULD be prosecuted....that it would only fall on poor women, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Got any CONSISTANT answers?

First you say under the Texas law "women who want abortions can still get them".....THEN you say the Texas law will stop "some abortions".

Which is the truth and which is the lie?

 

I am involved right now in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Part of that process is for our doctors actions to be reviewed by a panel of other doctors to assess his decisions and quality of care.

I have already admitted that all the murderers will not be caught.

Will you admit the same about rapists and other molesters?

Will you admit that this is all just a non sequitur / red herring / straw man fallacy to divert our efforts to ban abortions?

QUOTE=Gorn Captain;1062886141] So you just admitted that there are cases where you would just "give up" and let abortions occur because they would be "hard to prove". [/QUOTE]

It's sad that you feel the need to mischaracterize my comments that way.

Hopefully others will scroll back and read what I actually said.

Meh...

I'm putting you on ignore now.

I thought you could be a bit more civil than that.

 

Guess not, huh?

 

No rich and few middle class "murderering" women would be caught. One trip to Canada and back over a weekend.

Typical....you've never been questioned on your beliefs on the topic of "How do you enforce a national abortion ban"....have you? Just said "We'll make it illegal and it'll be illegal and that'll stop it from happening"...like so many other "pro-lifers".

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting on that ONE CONSISTANT position on that Texas law you support....is it-

A. "Women who want abortions can still get them"?

or B. "Some abortions" will be stopped?

BOTH...cannot be true, no matter how much you pretend they are.

 

You keep repeating the same twisted questions and one can nearly visualize you stomping your little feet because you're not getting your way.

Listen carefully and I'll try to dumb down my response.

SOME abortions will be stopped, ie, 26 week old babies in the womb will now be allowed to stay there until they're ready to be born. On the other hand, 12 week old babies in the womb will continue to be sucked out at the mother's request.

As medical science continues to advance, it won't be long before a 12 week old fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Then we'll have to revisit the subject, won't we? Or change the term from abort to kill.

 

Given that there are no elective abortions at this period I really don't see what the law achieves, unless of course this includes making abortions illegal when they can save the women's life, or for fetal disability incompatible with life .. be honest, this law is more about trying to get clinics closed down through kangaroo court decisions.

Well unless we invent an artificial womb what you are alluding to is impossible, and if an artificial womb is invented the subject of abortion will be moot anyway .. wonder what pro-lifers will focus on then .. contraception perhaps . .oh wait some of them already want that illegal as well.

 

Then you LIED when you said "Women who want abortions will still be able to get them"....didn't you?

 

Why are you so against criminalizing abortions, if you believe that women will still get them anyways?

 

Sure let's use that "logic" Sam......I'll call for the repeal of the 1st Amendment....doesn't mean you won't be able to speak, will it???

 

Why don't we take a look at some of these "reasons", according to other pro-choicers in this forum...

 

My quote was the reason a woman should never be forced to continue pregnancy/childbirth. It wasn't a reason for having an abortion.

 

Even if that means torturing the fetus in an abortion?

 

A fetus doesn't feel pain until about the 28th week.

 

What about after the 28th week?

 

Abortions after the 28th week are virtually non-existent.

 

Does that mean it's okay to kill a person so long as they don't feel any pain?

If you are intent on killing them.... what difference does it make if they might feel pain or not?

 

No it doesn't, the pain issue is just an indication of the wider scope involving higher brain functions, and we use it in direct disagreement with pro-lifers who claim that abortion should be made illegal because a fetus under a certain timescale can feel pain (wrongly I add)

So this is a direct refute to a single issue presented by pro-lifers, not an all encompassing reason.

 

You couldn't prove it even if it was. So let her make the decision, and stay out of her life.

 

They can feel pain far before then.

 

Not according to recent studies.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billof...ws-scientific-and-constitutional-controversy/

Babies Distinguish Pain from Touch at 35-37 Weeks, Research Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...encedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News)

Even if a fetus could feel pain earlier, there is no reason a fetus could not be anesthetized.

 

She has no right to make the fetus suffer in physical pain.

Even animals are treated better than fetuses.

 

Well there's another thing we can at least partially agree on.

The who debate around whether or not a child in the first days of development can actually "feel pain" or not is a complete red herring. Especially when there are much older children - several years old - who can not feel pain either.

 

If a woman is given a drug to remove physical pain it usually affects the baby as well since they share nutrients/oxygen. Anything she takes the baby will also have in it's system so it probably doesn't feel anything in an abortion even if it is capable of feeling pain at that point because she is more than likely under some kind of general anesthesia.

 

Again, can I just point out how fast the "pro-lifers" got away from the original premise of the OP?


Everybody know why?