30 ms·

At least many people opposed to abortion ostensibly think that it's murder. Given that framing, trying to collect evidence from hospitals seems reasonable. (A

At least many people opposed to abortion ostensibly think that it's murder. Given that framing, trying to collect evidence from hospitals seems reasonable. (At least they say they they consider it murder. The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.)

falcolas 2y ago
> The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.) Enough people in power believe it: At least one woman (Marshae Jones) was put in jail for getting shot while pregnant, while the shooter was let free. The woman was accused of not doing more to protect the "unborn baby". At least one woman (Brittney Poolaw) has been sentenced for having a miscarriage, and others have been arrested and charges brought against them.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  I looked up Brittney Poolaw. > Pregnancy advocates and others on social media are expressing outrage after a 21-year-old Oklahoma woman was convicted of first-degree manslaughter earlier this month for having a miscarriage, which the prosecutor blamed on her alleged use of methamphetamine.[1] I would argue she should be prosecuted (assuming the drug use can be proved) even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use. Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus? [1] https://archive.is/QHV3F#selection-1145.0-1145.260 https://archive.is/QHV3F#selection-1145.0-1145.260 Edit: It seems like the case hinges on the claim that the meth caused the miscarriage. > Prosecutors argued that the miscarriage Poolaw suffered was from her use of methamphetamine. An autopsy of the fetus showed it had tested positive for methamphetamine, the Associated Press reported, but there was no evidence her use of the substance is what caused the miscarriage. The autopsy showed the miscarriage could have been caused by a congenital abnormality and placental abruption, when the placenta detaches from the womb, the AP said.
  - honeybadger1 2y ago
    They don't care, hurts the narrative.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      I do care, about the woman and prosecutorial misconduct that used her to push an agenda - to promote the idea of "unborn children". She's a woman, belongs to a minority race, and a criminal. Yet I still believe she should have the same human rights as a white Christian man.
      - honeybadger1 2y ago
        Your argument is a house of cards built on moral relativism. You decry the prosecution of miscarriages while tacitly acknowledging the harm of maternal drug use, a logical pretzel that would make even the most skilled sophist blush. This not only insults the capabilities of modern medicine but also abdicates our societal responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Until we're prepared to confront the thorny realities of individual rights versus collective obligations, we're doomed to wallow in a quagmire of our own making, where justice is as elusive as the truth you seem so eager to obfuscate.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    > even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use. First, in 2020 abortion was not a crime since it is pre-Dobbs. Second, they don't know why she miscarried. They only assumed (as you've noted). They simply got creative in the meth charges in an effort to push the "unborn baby" narrative over a "fetus". The fact that the woman was a minority and a criminal simply made it easier. > Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus? Not really, when it results in a miscarriage. There's just too many reasons that miscarriage can happen, and no real reason to prove why to anything resembling reasonable doubt. If the child had lived to be born and shown problems with meth during pregnancy, they would have been taken from the mother and put in the foster system.
kid64 2y ago
Yeah, the right's response to COVID destroyed any credibility the phrase "pro-life" may have had left.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  By the same token, didn't the left's response destroy any credibility of the phrase "my body, my choice"?
  - kid64 2y ago
    No, COVID is a virus. Viruses spread, which affects OTHER people. Like actual people, not imaginary people that only exist in a specific religious context. It did further cement which side is aligned with scientific knowledge, however. Next?
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      When I said that abortion protestors don't seem sincere in their claim that abortion is murder, I said that because there's a huge gap between the intensity of their rhetoric (claiming that abortion is murder) and the their actions, which 99% of the time amount to little more than whining on social media. A very small minority resort to some form of vigilantism, those few probably believe their own rhetoric but the rest of them are full of hot air. But this argument also applies to the "You're killing Grandma!" crowd. Very few truly believe that refusing to take a vaccine is a murderous act, and that's why the most they do about it is whine online. In both cases you have people using very hyperbolic rhetoric to support a position they don't actually feel so strongly about. Very typical of American politics.
      - kid64 2y ago
        Just curious, what kind of action would the pro-vaccine constituency need to take to demonstrate their sincerity in your view?
  - falcolas 2y ago
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> At least many people opposed to abortion ostensibly think that it's murder. Given that framing, trying to collect evidence from hospitals seems reasonable. Is it? I often frame abortion as murder, but even then this goes a little far. If someone travels internationally to Slovenia (or Thailand, whereever), and they rob a bank there then it is more than a bit absurd for my Attorney General to try to prosecute that bank robbery from here in Minnesota. Even if the Slovenian government declines to prosecute and people are generally worried about justice being denied... it just can't happen from here. It doesn't work. Even that's not the end of it. A prosecutor who attempted it is merely wasting time and money, and maybe there's more than enough time (and though we shouldn't be wasteful, we're a rich country... wasting money's not as big of a deal as we might want it to be). But if it were more than a waste of time and money, if it undermined some principle or another that we should hold dear, then it becomes a big problem. General medical privacy is maybe one of those. How are we supposed to believe that it would only turn up abortion records? Maybe they're trawling for medical info so my insurance can be dropped even though my cancer's in remission. > The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it. How are they supposed to act? Like, is there a particular set of behaviors that would preserve your belief in their sincerity and their sanity? As far as they're concerned, they've lived through a half-century holocaust of baby murder, but the abortion clinic bomber was a terrorist and suggesting otherwise should have their names put on a watchlist. They're impotent to fix the greatest moral failing of their lifetime, ridiculed for even speaking out against it, and don't know how to pass their values on to their own offspring successfully. I suspect that, given their need to cope with something that is intolerable-yet-must-be-tolerated, they've all collectively decided not to bother trying to seem sincere to those who do not agree with them.
- kid64 2y ago
  Do you consider the women that die because they were denied medical care to have been murdered, too?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    How many of those are there? If I'm posed with a problem where in a given year 500,000 babies die or 350 women die depending on which of the two options I choose, how am I supposed to choose? And what if I have reason to believe that those 350 women die because, more often than not, pro-abortionists hold them hostage and then whine "it's not our fault, you wouldn't let us deal with the ectopic pregnancy! only legalized partial-birth abortions could've saved their lives!!!" ? It's difficult to even take your argument, as presented in the comment above, seriously. Are you just this bad at arguing, or do you just parrot the catchphrases without even thinking about them? Maybe you want me to feel bad about those 350 women? If I cry properly while singing the praises of their brave sacrifice, that's all you were asking for all along, and you'll stop supporting infant massacres? Is it that you've sort of ballparked how much of each occur, and you think the numbers are swapped? Only 350 fetuses aborted per year, but nearly half a million women? Maybe it's not even that one-sided, there's numerical parity?

falcolas 2y ago

> The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.) Enough people in power believe it: At least one woman (Marshae Jones) was put in jail for getting shot while pregnant, while the shooter was let free. The woman was accused of not doing more to protect the "unborn baby". At least one woman (Brittney Poolaw) has been sentenced for having a miscarriage, and others have been arrested and charges brought against them.

AlexandrB 2y ago
I looked up Brittney Poolaw. > Pregnancy advocates and others on social media are expressing outrage after a 21-year-old Oklahoma woman was convicted of first-degree manslaughter earlier this month for having a miscarriage, which the prosecutor blamed on her alleged use of methamphetamine.[1] I would argue she should be prosecuted (assuming the drug use can be proved) even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use. Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus? [1] https://archive.is/QHV3F#selection-1145.0-1145.260 https://archive.is/QHV3F#selection-1145.0-1145.260 Edit: It seems like the case hinges on the claim that the meth caused the miscarriage. > Prosecutors argued that the miscarriage Poolaw suffered was from her use of methamphetamine. An autopsy of the fetus showed it had tested positive for methamphetamine, the Associated Press reported, but there was no evidence her use of the substance is what caused the miscarriage. The autopsy showed the miscarriage could have been caused by a congenital abnormality and placental abruption, when the placenta detaches from the womb, the AP said.
- honeybadger1 2y ago
  They don't care, hurts the narrative.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    I do care, about the woman and prosecutorial misconduct that used her to push an agenda - to promote the idea of "unborn children". She's a woman, belongs to a minority race, and a criminal. Yet I still believe she should have the same human rights as a white Christian man.
    - honeybadger1 2y ago
      Your argument is a house of cards built on moral relativism. You decry the prosecution of miscarriages while tacitly acknowledging the harm of maternal drug use, a logical pretzel that would make even the most skilled sophist blush. This not only insults the capabilities of modern medicine but also abdicates our societal responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Until we're prepared to confront the thorny realities of individual rights versus collective obligations, we're doomed to wallow in a quagmire of our own making, where justice is as elusive as the truth you seem so eager to obfuscate.
- falcolas 2y ago
  > even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use. First, in 2020 abortion was not a crime since it is pre-Dobbs. Second, they don't know why she miscarried. They only assumed (as you've noted). They simply got creative in the meth charges in an effort to push the "unborn baby" narrative over a "fetus". The fact that the woman was a minority and a criminal simply made it easier. > Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus? Not really, when it results in a miscarriage. There's just too many reasons that miscarriage can happen, and no real reason to prove why to anything resembling reasonable doubt. If the child had lived to be born and shown problems with meth during pregnancy, they would have been taken from the mother and put in the foster system.

kid64 2y ago

Yeah, the right's response to COVID destroyed any credibility the phrase "pro-life" may have had left.

AlexandrB 2y ago
By the same token, didn't the left's response destroy any credibility of the phrase "my body, my choice"?
- kid64 2y ago
  No, COVID is a virus. Viruses spread, which affects OTHER people. Like actual people, not imaginary people that only exist in a specific religious context. It did further cement which side is aligned with scientific knowledge, however. Next?
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    When I said that abortion protestors don't seem sincere in their claim that abortion is murder, I said that because there's a huge gap between the intensity of their rhetoric (claiming that abortion is murder) and the their actions, which 99% of the time amount to little more than whining on social media. A very small minority resort to some form of vigilantism, those few probably believe their own rhetoric but the rest of them are full of hot air. But this argument also applies to the "You're killing Grandma!" crowd. Very few truly believe that refusing to take a vaccine is a murderous act, and that's why the most they do about it is whine online. In both cases you have people using very hyperbolic rhetoric to support a position they don't actually feel so strongly about. Very typical of American politics.
    - kid64 2y ago
      Just curious, what kind of action would the pro-vaccine constituency need to take to demonstrate their sincerity in your view?
- falcolas 2y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> At least many people opposed to abortion ostensibly think that it's murder. Given that framing, trying to collect evidence from hospitals seems reasonable. Is it? I often frame abortion as murder, but even then this goes a little far. If someone travels internationally to Slovenia (or Thailand, whereever), and they rob a bank there then it is more than a bit absurd for my Attorney General to try to prosecute that bank robbery from here in Minnesota. Even if the Slovenian government declines to prosecute and people are generally worried about justice being denied... it just can't happen from here. It doesn't work. Even that's not the end of it. A prosecutor who attempted it is merely wasting time and money, and maybe there's more than enough time (and though we shouldn't be wasteful, we're a rich country... wasting money's not as big of a deal as we might want it to be). But if it were more than a waste of time and money, if it undermined some principle or another that we should hold dear, then it becomes a big problem. General medical privacy is maybe one of those. How are we supposed to believe that it would only turn up abortion records? Maybe they're trawling for medical info so my insurance can be dropped even though my cancer's in remission. > The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it. How are they supposed to act? Like, is there a particular set of behaviors that would preserve your belief in their sincerity and their sanity? As far as they're concerned, they've lived through a half-century holocaust of baby murder, but the abortion clinic bomber was a terrorist and suggesting otherwise should have their names put on a watchlist. They're impotent to fix the greatest moral failing of their lifetime, ridiculed for even speaking out against it, and don't know how to pass their values on to their own offspring successfully. I suspect that, given their need to cope with something that is intolerable-yet-must-be-tolerated, they've all collectively decided not to bother trying to seem sincere to those who do not agree with them.

kid64 2y ago
Do you consider the women that die because they were denied medical care to have been murdered, too?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  How many of those are there? If I'm posed with a problem where in a given year 500,000 babies die or 350 women die depending on which of the two options I choose, how am I supposed to choose? And what if I have reason to believe that those 350 women die because, more often than not, pro-abortionists hold them hostage and then whine "it's not our fault, you wouldn't let us deal with the ectopic pregnancy! only legalized partial-birth abortions could've saved their lives!!!" ? It's difficult to even take your argument, as presented in the comment above, seriously. Are you just this bad at arguing, or do you just parrot the catchphrases without even thinking about them? Maybe you want me to feel bad about those 350 women? If I cry properly while singing the praises of their brave sacrifice, that's all you were asking for all along, and you'll stop supporting infant massacres? Is it that you've sort of ballparked how much of each occur, and you think the numbers are swapped? Only 350 fetuses aborted per year, but nearly half a million women? Maybe it's not even that one-sided, there's numerical parity?