I am keeping up just fine. You are the one who introduced the police into the conversation. Bottom line is that deaths, all deaths are documented and classified. Those that are not deemed "by natural causes" are investigated further. In the context of abortion, if abortion would be illegal miscarriages would have to be investigated in depth in order to eliminate the possibility of foul play. Are they? How? No they can not. Anyone found dead, unless a doctor familiar with the deceased and the medical history of the deceased can declare natural caused death, the coroner is notified and the exact cause of death determined.
But it does. Never heard of one objecting. Only to the very ignorant who are clueless about laws. But not in the first trimester when abortions are performed. Actually it is you who is incorrect. Only if you have no intelligent rebuttals, but relevant arguments are far better.
Not only are you not keeping up, you are contradicting yourself as well. There would be no need for any additional investigation in the case of a miscarriage than there would be in the heart attack example. I am actually NOT the one who introduced law enforcement into the conversation. That was Bowerbird WAAAAAAY back in the thread. Like I said before, do try to keep up. Are you seriously suggesting that doctors do not examine the mother afterward to determine why the miscarriage occurred to try to prevent it from happening again? Determined how? More often than not by reviewing the facts at the scene and the individual's medical history. Autopsies are not routinely performed. I think you watch too much CSI.
So um...you do not think death should be an opt-in process? Should I be allowed to kill anyone I want if they dont object? Where was I discussing law? LOL Opinions are not the same as laws. You think all abortions are done in the first trimester? Have you researched this topic at all? Dude, you really need to actually read up on this stuff before making retarded claims like this. Seriously, this stuff is common sense. Even most pro-abortionists know this. So you cannot explain why your retarded one-liner applies to abortion but not to Slavery, Rape or Murder? How can I rebut your argument when you do not even KNOW your own argument? LOL
The original issue was her assertion that: "that would require investigating even a miscarriage with the assumption it might have been an abortion." To this you replied: "It actually would not. We don't investigate every heart attack to determine if it was caused by a poisoning." Not only is that incorrect but it does not address the issue. If abortion would be illegal, miscarriages would have to be investigated because nonsurgical abortions manifest themselves as miscarriages. Not if she does not wish to. Exactly, if that is available and the doctor has the knowledge. In absence of that the coroner is involved. If certain criteria are met. It is a serious issue that is never glossed over. You are attempting to mask your lack of knowledge.
Apparently you can not "opt in" even if you wanted so what is your point? You said: "So you think murder and rape should be legal." Did you mean to discuss your grandmother's favorite hat? Moreover being clueless about the law as you seem to be, is not a discussion about the law, only about your knowledge of it. Yes, elective abortions yes, since late term are illegal unless special circumstances are met. If that is not so, I am sure you could offer some proof instead of inane assertions. Dude you are demonstrating ignorance again. 20 weeks is way past the point where abortions are performed. In intellectual undertakings such as debate, knowledgeable people do not ask others to prove what they are not capable of, especially not negatives. Clearly this is not an area of your expertise.
NOPE the issue goes back before that into a discussion I had with Bowerbird, not Makedde. This makes no sense whatsoever. "Back alley abortions" is what pro abortion folks always claim is what they vare trying to avoid. Those are not "miscarriages" in any way shape or form. The TRUTH is that there would be no further investigation needed than there would with any other death. That could be evidence of foul play. What women who didn't cause her own miscarriage intentionaly wouldn't want a doctor to try to find out why it heppened? The coroner is involved regardless, but does not ALWYAS conduct an autopsy! Again you prove my point, they are not always performed.
Which part proved difficult to you? Join the modern world. This is 2011 and back alley abortions are not relevant or an issue. You offer nothing to support that. Vague statements do not make an argument. You were asked how it would be enforced and all you come up is vagueness. I guess it is another argument you can not address with anything relevant. You are veering into conspiracy theories now. One not wishing to become the victim of a zealot prosecutor on a witch hunt because his god tells him to do so. We have seen plenty of them already. An autopsy is conducted whenever it is necessary. That necessity can be as simple as the lack of the real cause of death. for instance, an apparent heart attack of an otherwise healthy young person wold bring about an autopsy.
That kidna IS the point, LOL Are you really assuming that someone who cant speak or communicate wants to die by default? Emphasis mine. By saying "you think" I was referencing an opinion about what SHOULD be legal, not making claims about what is actually legal. I refuse to believe you are this uninformed. But just in case: There is no nationwide ban on late term abortions. The states decide how legal they want it to be right now. Partial Birth abortion is banned. "Late Term" abortion is not. Uh huh You have been officially... That appears to be a tacit admission that you cannot explain why his retarded one-liner does not apply to rape, murder , or slavery.
what is the point? That fetuses should have a choice when no one else can opt in, as you said? That is quite a brilliant line of reasoning. Have I said that? I am touched? You care about what I think. On the other hand it is more likely that now you are back pedaling from the stupidity of that question.
That you cannot give the "choice' to the mother without taking it away from the child. I thought that was obvious. You really needed me to spoon feed that to you? Its actually common sense IMO. Yeah, you kinda of have. But I am trying to clarify, because I dont want to put words in your mouth. Isnt that nice of me? If I didnt I would not be asking you, would I? Do you know your own opinions? I guess we will never know since you refuse to answer anyway. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that you either really do believe that rape/murder/slavery are ok, or you just dont want to admit that the one-liner was as stupidly simplistic as it sounds.
An unborn "child" is not capable of making choices, so nothing is taken away from it. If that were so, then you and others would take away its "choice" by demanding forced birth.
The only thing obvious is that you are moving the goal posts. If that is the best you can do it is regrettable. Common among those who prefer morality coercion I suppose, but not among rational people. Kinda? Let me help you out. I did NOT. You mean your question, yes it was.
The fact that you dont pay attention to what you are responding to does not mean goal posts are being moved. LOL The rest of your post was basically petty insults. Which I have come to expect from pro-abortionists in threads like this.
I didn't say that at all. I said an "unborn child" is not capable of making choices. Please don't twist my words to cover up your own lie.
And you advocate for the killing of the unborn child at will by his/her mother, so what he posted seems correct.
Nothing I have said can be construed to mean "it should be legal to kill anyone not capable of making choices."
The criteria was choice not decision making. why do you have to move the goal posts? What is your position, can fetuses make choices?
Sure. Why shouldn't America be aborting it's children. We catch them before they're born. Seems to make us feel less guilty. Ancient Baal et al worshippers had to wait till the child was born before they could throw it on a sacrificial fire in honor of their god. Same thing really.
An embryo and a baby are actually quite different. I suppose equating them for the purpose of abortion debate makes us feel more righteous.
