Comments
Modestkilla t1_jaoic18 wrote
Same, never in my life did I expect to be with someone who needed an abortion, but my wife just did.
We are trying to have a second child, but unfortunately we found out there were a multitude of issue with the baby at around 13 weeks. The issues, including heart, neck and head malformations were caused by a chromosomal translocation.
If the baby made it to term quality of life would have been extremely low, and they would likely only live a few days or at most a couple years. We made the not so easy decision to end the pregnancy.
It was bad enough in this state, the doctor had to read some legal documents, had to offer to show us photos of fetuses, wait 24 hours, and sign paperwork saying that we understood everything. I could not imagine what others have to go through in some states. And forcing someone to go to term like that is simply pure evil.
defusted t1_jaok11d wrote
It really sucks you had to go through that, but at least it wasn't worse
Outrageous-Scene4751 t1_jap8wp9 wrote
so the people in the other states finally got to run their lives and they decided to use their choice to make stiffer abortion restrictions....oh you didnt really mean run their own lives. your imperial attitude will eventually destroy the empire. people have a right to self government. suck it.
defusted t1_japa0ed wrote
You're a dumb asshole. They don't want the right to run their own lives, they want the right to run others lives. Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?
SWPenn t1_jatgcmk wrote
They can run their own lives as they see fit. The problem is they want to run everyone else's life, too.
drunkmonkey176 t1_jamh98r wrote
In Y'All Qaederica, 18 is too young to vote, but old enough to buy an AR. Also, a raped 10 year old is old enough to be a mother.
Zenith2017 t1_jamvgun wrote
Not only is she old enough, she's forced to be a mother or face a murder charge at age 10
Edit: or she can just die. You wouldn't MURDER a BABY just to save a little girl that got raped by a Catholic priest would you?!?!
[deleted] t1_jan9b11 wrote
> a Catholic priest
They prefer boys.
Zenith2017 t1_janbfsg wrote
Checkmate, liberal
[deleted] t1_jamuc68 wrote
[removed]
peruserloser t1_jamtpcy wrote
Wow this was a really good read. I didn't even know about this commission. This needs to be shared lest we have to repeat history.
Atrocious_1 t1_jao2ee9 wrote
Dems had 50 years to codify it into law. Meanwhile Clinton and Obama pissed away the chance to do it. Now we have to deal with this nonsense.
RenaissanceMan247 t1_jaqv5y9 wrote
Too true. Politicians are just ego driven scam artists now.
Atrocious_1 t1_jarhypr wrote
Can't wait for SCOTUS to say precedent is wrong again and roll back gay marriage all because Dems were too cowardly to put it into law
[deleted] t1_jamcu32 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jamemls wrote
[removed]
glberns t1_jamhbt5 wrote
Sounds like you want to make abortion illegal. Would your preferred law also allow women to have a legal abortion when her life is in danger?
SomDonkus t1_jamhhsz wrote
Don’t even comment. This guy is a fucking degenerate based on his comment and post history but wants to high road other people lol
Lance_lake t1_jamm0as wrote
> Sounds like you want to make abortion illegal.
Correct.
> Would your preferred law also allow women to have a legal abortion when her life is in danger?
Yes. Also in the rare cases of rape or insest. Considering this is less than 1% of all abortions done, I would consider that reasonable since you are killing a life to save another.
iluvgivingblowjobs t1_jamme9t wrote
So you agree that murder is sometimes acceptable? Interesting.
Lance_lake t1_jamogvb wrote
> So you agree that murder is sometimes acceptable? Interesting.
Yes. I presume you agree that if someone is going to kill you, it's ok to kill them. I also presume you accept killing in terms of warfare where it's the purpose of war.
If you need to save a life, then killing the being putting that life in danger is acceptable IMHO.
iluvgivingblowjobs t1_jamv2ki wrote
Glad we agree that safe abortion should continue to be available.
Lance_lake t1_janb6w0 wrote
> Glad we agree that safe abortion should continue to be available.
In those specific instances, yes. We agree.
iluvgivingblowjobs t1_janp23h wrote
Of course, because if safe abortion was not legal then a lot of accidental murder would occur. Now we don’t want hundreds of dead women and deformed fetuses at birth, don’t we?
Like I said, so glad that we agree.
Lance_lake t1_janpq56 wrote
I think you are trying to be sly and make a point without saying it. Are you being sarcastic? Because yes. We both agree here.
iluvgivingblowjobs t1_jasgu7t wrote
Good, it’s always nice to meet another pro-choice person. What you agreed to is exactly why we need safe and legal abortion, therefore making you pro-choice. Take care, I’m glad we had this chat.
Lance_lake t1_jasqrur wrote
> Good, it’s always nice to meet another pro-choice person. What you agreed to is exactly why we need safe and legal abortion, therefore making you pro-choice. Take care, I’m glad we had this chat. I'm fine with that as long as they are reserved to 3 things.
-
The child will have no ability to live outside of the mother.
-
The child is a product of rape.
-
The child is a product of incest.
nalgene_wilder t1_jan4his wrote
Taking a pro-violence stance against unborn babies? A new low for the moral majority
Lance_lake t1_janai00 wrote
> Taking a pro-violence stance against unborn babies? A new low for the moral majority
I'm not speaking for a group. Simply myself. If you want to twist my words around like that, please feel free.
Atrocious_1 t1_jao5vgy wrote
So killing conservatives is justifiable. Thank you for this clarification.
Lance_lake t1_jaoevko wrote
> So killing conservatives is justifiable. Thank you for this clarification.
No problem. It's as justifiable as killing liberals. Not at all. But you already knew that.
Atrocious_1 t1_jaoku8e wrote
Liberals don't want to kill me though
Lance_lake t1_jaol8iu wrote
> Liberals don't want to kill me though
I fear with 1% of my being that they do though. So it's justifiable. :)
Atrocious_1 t1_jaoobqc wrote
Lol ok kid
iluvgivingblowjobs t1_jashhzf wrote
Thank you for again confirming that you’re pro-choice.
Lance_lake t1_jasqero wrote
I am very pro choice.
-
Motherhood
-
Abstance
-
Adoption
I just don't believe in the 4th choice of killing a baby.
glberns t1_jammpha wrote
> Yes. Also in the rare cases of rape or insest. Considering this is less than 1% of all abortions done, I would consider that reasonable since you are killing a life to save another.
I'm glad to know that you don't want women to die. In your ideal world, who decides when the woman's life is in enough danger to allow a legal abortion?
Lance_lake t1_jamota9 wrote
> I'm glad to know that you don't want women to die. In your ideal world, who decides when the woman's life is in enough danger to allow a legal abortion?
The doctor and woman most likely. If the doctor agrees that the woman would die if she gave birth (or have say a 90% chance or higher), then in my perfect world, it would be allowable if the woman agrees it's the best decision (and I'd also support her making the decision to take that risk).
glberns t1_jamxew6 wrote
>The doctor and woman most likely. If the doctor agrees that the woman would die if she gave birth (or have say a 90% chance or higher)
Do you recognize the inherent contradiction in this statement? Do you believe that a woman should be legally allowed to have an abortion if the risk of death is too high for her risk tolerance, or what you want it to be (i.e. 90% risk of death)?
Lance_lake t1_janb4io wrote
> Do you recognize the inherent contradiction in this statement?
I do not.
> Do you believe that a woman should be legally allowed to have an abortion if the risk of death is too high for her risk tolerance, or what you want it to be (i.e. 90% risk of death)?
As long as the risk level is reasonable. You aren't going to make me agree that 5% risk is too much risk to take for a woman who is pregnant.
Apply it to the self defense argument. If I thought someone was a 1% risk to myself in an encounter, do I have a right to kill that person? No.
If I have a 95% risk that I will die from the encounter, then yes. I believe I have a legal right to defend (up to killing said person if needed) myself.
glberns t1_janc88r wrote
Let's explore the 1% risk of death situation.
A woman goes to her doctor and learns that her pregnancy may kill her with a 1% risk. She's uncomfortable taking that risk and wants to get an abortion. In this hyothetical, both the woman and the doctor believe her life is in enough jeopardy to be covered under the life of the mother exemption.
But you want that abortion to be illegal. So it's clear that you do not believe that the doctor and woman decide when her life is in enough peril to be allowed a legal abortion.
So back to my original question: Who decides when the woman's life is in enough jeopardy? Do you want the government to define the necessary risk tolerance? Should it be written into your law?
Lance_lake t1_jang8u2 wrote
So let me ask you this. Do you agree that the baby is a living human being?
Lance_lake t1_jang1bk wrote
> In this hyothetical, both the woman and the doctor believe her life is in enough jeopardy to be covered under the life of the mother exemption.
This is where your hypothetical breaks down. A doctor isn't going to agree that a 1% risk is worth killing a human life. If he is, then he is a terrible doctor and should have his license revoked. He would also never suggest anything to patients because all drugs have a 1% chance of killing someone in a freak accident type of way.
> So it's clear that you do not believe that the doctor and woman decide when her life is in enough peril to be allowed a legal abortion.
I said as long as the risk is reasonable. I don't believe people would agree with you that a 1% chance of death in childbirth is a reasonable concern.
You do realize that if you are arguing that it should just be up to the woman and doctor if they kill someone, then you are suggesting people like Michael Joseph Swango did nothing wrong because those people had a 1% chance of killing him.
glberns t1_janjmcq wrote
> I said as long as the risk is reasonable.
The entire discussion is about who defines what is reasonable? You keep dancing around that question. Please just answer it.
Lance_lake t1_janp8y1 wrote
> The entire discussion is about who defines what is reasonable? You keep dancing around that question. Please just answer it.
I have not. I'm using a term used in called the legal concept of the “reasonable person".
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
> Sometimes, self-defense is legally justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person" in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.
> Under the legal concept of the “reasonable person," legal systems determine whether a person's feelings and experience of imminent danger justify the use of force as a response to a threat.
> As an example, imagine two strangers walking past each other in a city park. A bee is buzzing around the head of one of the two people. The other person sees this. Trying to be friendly, the other person reaches quickly to try to swat the bee away from the bee's soon-to-be-victim. The person with the bee by their head, only seeing a stranger's hand move quickly toward their face, might understandably slap the other person's hand away violently.
> In other circumstances, the slap would amount to a textbook assault, but a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger's hand toward a person's face would cause a reasonable person to conclude that they were in danger of immediate physical harm. This would likely render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right to self-defense. It would not matter that the perceived attacker meant no harm and was, in fact, actually trying to help!
So who defines what is "reasonable" is already a matter of law. I am using the legal definition of reasonable. A "reasonable person" would not think a 1% chance of death is acceptable to murder someone.
glberns t1_janre5p wrote
Okay, so you're saying that you want judges to define what the line is based on the "reasonable person" standard. Thank you for (finally) defining that.
Now, do you see how inserting a judge into the decision making process is not leaving it up to the woman and her doctor? When I asked you who decides when her life is in enough risk, you said
>The doctor and woman most likely.
But now you're saying that it should be the judiciary's interpretation of what a resonable preson would do. Ultimately, you believe that whether a woman should have access to legal abortion should be up to whether a judge believes her pregnancy is risky enough.
Personally, I think a 1% chance of death is more than acceptable to allow a legal abortion -- even if you believe that it's murder.
But that belief is rooted in the idea that people have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. Which means that if someone depends on your body to survive that you have a right to cut them off from your body at anypoint, even if it kills them. It's dissapointing (and a little disturbing) that you believe that someone else should have a legal right to your body.
And a 1-in-100 chance is very high when you're talking about death. Would you get on an airplane if 1 in 100 crash? Would you play a sport where there's a 1-in-100 chance that you'd die?
Lance_lake t1_janu9tz wrote
I am thankful for you keeping calm explaining your viewpoint. But now, you are telling me what I believe and making assumptions on that belief. The very nature of the strawman falicy.
I never said it was only up to a judge. I have said before how I defined it. I don't believe that someone else should have a legal right to a body. The 1% chance was me rounding up.
> Rates in 2020 were 13.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for women under age 25, 22.8 for those aged 25–39, and 107.9 for those aged 40 and over
13.8 + 22.8 + 107.9 = 144.5 per 100,000 births.
.001445%
Do you want to still say that risk is reasonable to kill another human being?
glberns t1_janyu3r wrote
> I never said it was only up to a judge.
Who else defines the legal standard of "reasonable person"? In practice, that standard is defined by a judge.
>I don't believe that someone else should have a legal right to a body.
But you believe that a woman should be legally forbidden from removing a fetus if she doesn't want it to use her body... You're contradicting yourself. Either you believe that she should be able to control whether the fetus uses her body, or you believe that the fetus has a legal right to her body. You can't believe both.
>Do you want to still say that risk is reasonable to kill another human being?
I believe that each person should get to define how much risk they want to take with their body. That a woman should not be legally required to take even that small risk.
I certainly don't believe that the government should define an acceptable level of risk for an individual.
Lance_lake t1_jaofsba wrote
> Who else defines the legal standard of "reasonable person"? In practice, that standard is defined by a judge.
Judges don't make laws. Government (elected by the people) make them.
> But you believe that a woman should be legally forbidden from removing a fetus if she doesn't want it to use her body... You're contradicting yourself. Either you believe that she should be able to control whether the fetus uses her body, or you believe that the fetus has a legal right to her body. You can't believe both.
You are trying to use the violinist discussion here.
> You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Yes?
> I believe that each person should get to define how much risk they want to take with their body. That a woman should not be legally required to take even that small risk.
So you are also against the military, schooling, and police then? Those are careers that they don't get a say as to how much risk they put themselves under.
When you get pregnant, you have agreed to take this risk.
> I certainly don't believe that the government should define an acceptable level of risk for an individual.
I'm sorry you don't want to fit into a society with laws. Thank you for your input, but this statement betrays your calm vernacular. If you don't agree with laws that limit risk to people, then I don't see any purpose of continuing with this conversation.
glberns t1_jap6k2k wrote
You're literally saying that you want the "reasonable person" standard to define when a woman meets the criteria for the life of the mother exemption your ideal law would allow for. If that's how you want the law to read, then it will be up to the judiciary to decide where the line is. Every time a woman gets an abortion to save her life, she'll be gambling that a judge agrees with her that she's being reasonable.
How do you expect that to play out without a judge deciding whether she's being reasonable?
>So you are also against the military, schooling, and police then? Those are careers that they don't get a say as to how much risk they put themselves under.
I'm against the draft, yes. And forcing people to be police officers. People can choose to take that risk.
>When you get pregnant, you have agreed to take this risk.
Unless she didn't want to get pregnant...
And you point out that a normal risk from pregnancy is way less than 1%. So when a woman gets a condition that increases that risk to 1%, that's more risk than she wanted to take.
At the end of the day you're position is to impose your risk tolerance on others.
defusted t1_jam9fu6 wrote
I'm glad I live in a state where, for the most part, we value people's rights to decide for themselves. Dumb pieces of shit running other states immediately got to see the consequences that everyone told them would happen almost immediately and none of them cared.