(Feb 7, 2019 06:34 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 6, 2019 11:28 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, I JUST gave you the federal ruling that explicitly defined "health" (and included "emotional and psychological factors"), and you immediately claim federal law doesn't define it.
I don’t have time to teach someone that is obviously not interested in knowing the full facts of each case, but I did however, provide you with a paper that contains all the cases and the opinions of the judges in regards to how the term "health" is defined.
Then maybe you shouldn't say stupid crap like this:
(Feb 6, 2019 06:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Silly boy, it follows suit with the federal law just like I said. The federal law does not explicitly define "health".
What, you just didn't know that how "health" was defined in your cited paper was federal law? And now you're trying to backpedal? Read you own citations, deary.
Quote:"Abortions that occur beyond 24 weeks make up less than 1% of all procedures."
Before Judging Late-Term Abortion, Understand What it Means]https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html] Before Judging Late-Term Abortion, Understand What it Means
(Feb 6, 2019 04:25 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
...the number of infant deaths [not fetus deaths] that are the result of...an induced termination.
...143 (24.3%) could definitively be classified as involving an induced termination. A list of the terms on which this number is based is shown below. Most of the remaining deaths are clearly spontaneous. However, it is possible that this number (143) underestimates the total number of deaths involving induced termination.
- https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_policy/m...gnancy.htm
If even one preventable infanticide occurs, that's one too many. That's what the
Democrat Virginia governor advocated.
And 1% of over 600,000 is over 6,000.
Quote:Syne Wrote:You're quoting things without making it clear what is and is not a quote, which is plagiarism.
Shut the fuck up. The link is right there. This is a casual setting. Who cares if I miss a few quotation marks? You should be grateful that I’m even responding to you.
I don't give a crap if you respond to me, deary. If you can't help but plagiarize stuff, by all means, quit responding.
Quote:Let’s cut the shit. You’re not just opposed to late-term abortion. You’re pro-life and it’s obvious that you didn’t even realize that the exception for "health" was and has been the same for post-viability since 1973. The New York law only included nonviable fetuses and licensed practitioners to ensure access in areas where there are few physicians. Do your fucking homework!
Yeah, big surprise, I'm against Roe v Wade, and every ruling that supports it. If you're just now cluing in on that fact, well bless your heart.
I know the existing slippery slope exceptions, and I know that the NY law expanded on them with even less trained licensed practitioners and no criminal penalty for killing a baby prior to viability through violence against the mother (you must be so proud of them reducing the potential penalties for domestic abuse), and Dems in congress just made sure any doctor committing infanticide won't be punished.
Quote:Secular Sanity Wrote:Abortion issues are never (what did you say) "no brainers?" They’re extremely complicated and there all sorts of serious considerations that have to be taken in.
Syne Wrote:No, I said:
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.
But that's not what you originally said, is it?
You said...
(Feb 4, 2019 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway. It's obviously always better to save one life rather than lose two. So this is another disingenuous or ignorant argument.
And there's a big difference.
No, just your appalling reading comprehension.
Quote:Syne Wrote:By go ahead, name some of these "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death".
Eating disorders, reckless behavior, drug and alcohol addiction, and suicide.
Have them committed for their own safety then. Abortion is not going to stop any of that behavior and pregnancy does not contribute to them.
Quote:Syne Wrote:And beyond that, which "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death" are cured by abortion?
There are numerous studies showing that an abortion can relieve the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. Forced continuation can have immediate and long term effects on mental health.
Oh, so when you can no longer quote the ONE paper you found, you're mum on citations, huh?
Footwork my ass.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Where are the studies on these?
They're easy to locate. Maybe your search engines algorithms have developed a bias, as well.
No reason to believe you, as you've been repeatedly intellectually dishonest.
All your self-congratulatory "footwork" seems to of only been laying the ground work for you to completely shit the bed.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Being unable to care for a child has NOTHING to do with being able to carry one to term, as adoption and even anonymous abdication of a woman's parental responsibilities is readily available.
Woah! So, if you’re mentally ill you should be forced to give birth and put the baby up for adoption?
And somehow this isn’t going to increase the risk to the mother’s mental health?
You didn't say "mentally ill", you said:
(Feb 6, 2019 06:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]mentally incompetent, and unable to care for the child
If you're mentally ill, you may recover and become capable of caring for your child, in which case it would likely be in the care of family members or a foster home in the meantime.
But if you are mentally incompetent, you cannot legally make decisions for yourself, much less for the life of another.
No, pregnancy is not a symptom of nor a contributor to mental illness.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Your temporary health does not trump the life of another.
Temporary health? You’re just assuming that licensed practitioners aren’t capable of making that decision, and insisting that the state should step in, which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Nurse practitioners and physician's assistants, who have even less training in diagnosing mental illness than doctors, who are themselves poorly equipped to do so.
Your privacy rights do not include you killing another.
Quote:Let’s not forget that history has shown that the criminalization of abortion didn’t prevent women from seeking them to control their reproduction. There’s a long history of abortion.
Quote:Prior to 1973 the authority to legalize abortion rested with the state governments. Up through the 1960s 44 states had laws that outlawed abortions regardless if the abortion threatened the well-being of the mother.
In the 1940s records show that more than 1,000 women died each year from abortions that were labeled as unsafe. Many of these abortions were self-induced. Unsafe abortion practices were such a concern in the United States that nearly every large hospital had some type of "septic abortion ward" that was responsible for dealing with the complications that accompanied an incomplete abortion. Incomplete abortions were the leading cause for OB-GYN services across the United States. In the 1960s, the National Opinion Research Center found that hundreds of women were attempting to self-abort with coat hangers, knitting needles and ballpoint pens, and by swallowing toxic chemicals like bleach and laundry detergent. However, the number of deaths declined significantly into the 1960s and 1970s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972, 130,000 women attempted self-induced abortions or obtained illegal abortions, resulting in 39 deaths.
Unsafe Abortion
If you think that criminalizing abortion is good for our society then you're the one who is morally bankrupt.
1,000 deaths compared to over 600,000 is easy math for the morally sane. Our society no longer has anywhere near the stigma, if any exists at all, on single-motherhood it did at that time. So you're making an argument that is obsolete.