CA Sues Hospital for Refusing Abortion

[gatomontes99]

44 minutes ago, Hodad said:

A. The pregnant person is indisputably a person. 

B. The fetus is not a person

C. Even if the fetus were a person with full equal rights, it would no more entitled to inhabit the host's body--steal the blood and tissue, and inflict medical and psychological trauma--than any other person. 

Your mother brought you into the world, but you can't take her blood or her kidney, not any other part of her simply because of that relationship. She can willingly donate either, but you're not entitled to take them against her will.

B isn't true, it's semantics/word games. What makes it not a human? Nothing. If we agree that all humans have rights, then your word game about it being a person is worthless.

C There is a bad saying about your rights end were mine begin.  That isn't true. Our rights intersect all the time. In those instances, the courts have several factors that are important in determining whose rights prevail. The big ones are cause and harm.

If you cause a car wreck, you are responsible because you encroached on two important rights, person and property. As such, the courts will require that you, to the greatest extent possible, will have to make restitution.

If you pump and dump a stock, you harmed other investors and will be held liable.

In the case of abortion, the mother likely caused the child to come into existence, she is responsible and therefore her rights are secondary. Further, if the child dies as a result of her actions, she is responsible for a greater harm so her rights are secondary.

If the child is killing her, then her rights become primary.

 

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

B isn't true, it's semantics/word games. What makes it not a human? Nothing. If we agree that all humans have rights, then your word game about it being a person is worthless.

C There is a bad saying about your rights end were mine begin.  That isn't true. Our rights intersect all the time. In those instances, the courts have several factors that are important in determining whose rights prevail. The big ones are cause and harm.

If you cause a car wreck, you are responsible because you encroached on two important rights, person and property. As such, the courts will require that you, to the greatest extent possible, will have to make restitution.

If you pump and dump a stock, you harmed other investors and will be held liable.

In the case of abortion, the mother likely caused the child to come into existence, she is responsible and therefore her rights are secondary. Further, if the child dies as a result of her actions, she is responsible for a greater harm so her rights are secondary.

If the child is killing her, then her rights become primary.

 

Who decides whether the child is killing the mother? The doctor who recommended an abortion to save the mother’s life?

What if the doctor says the chances of the mother dying is 90%? 50%? 25%?  Who should decide?  YOU???? Or the mother and her doctor?  Why do you think this is any of your business? 

[gatomontes99]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Who decides whether the child is killing the mother? The doctor who recommended an abortion to save the mother’s life?

What if the doctor says the chances of the mother dying is 90%? 50%? 25%?  Who should decide?  YOU???? Or the mother and her doctor?  Why do you think this is any of your business? 

There should be a board of doctors that a deindentified chart is sent to and they give the approval or denial.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

B isn't true, it's semantics/word games. What makes it not a human? Nothing. If we agree that all humans have rights, then your word game about it being a person is worthless.

C There is a bad saying about your rights end were mine begin.  That isn't true. Our rights intersect all the time. In those instances, the courts have several factors that are important in determining whose rights prevail. The big ones are cause and harm.

If you cause a car wreck, you are responsible because you encroached on two important rights, person and property. As such, the courts will require that you, to the greatest extent possible, will have to make restitution.

If you pump and dump a stock, you harmed other investors and will be held liable.

In the case of abortion, the mother likely caused the child to come into existence, she is responsible and therefore her rights are secondary. Further, if the child dies as a result of her actions, she is responsible for a greater harm so her rights are secondary.

If the child is killing her, then her rights become primary.

 

B. It's not a person in that it lacks the basic characteristics of personhood. It has no identify, no sense of self, no autonomy, no ability to process information. If an extra-uterine human has that level of cognition we understand that it has passed beyond personhood. We call it a "vegetable" and pull the plug. 

C. You can snip the irrelevant first three paragraphs of your reply. There is no tenable philosophy that proposes that either the intended or unintended consequences of a sex act magically create a supremacy of rights. 

And indeed, if you really want to make an argument for the supremacy of fetal rights, you can no longer give consideration to the life and health of the pregnant person. In such a cockamamie scheme, they must die before terminating a pregnancy.

Your mother does not owe you her blood and tissue, period. If you try to take it from her, she is well within her legal and moral rights to defend herself against you. Go ahead. Try it. See how that goes. 

 

Edited October 2, 2024 by Hodad

[Black Dog]

55 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

There should be a board of doctors that a deindentified chart is sent to and they give the approval or denial.

lol yeah "Hey sorry you're bleeding out here but we have to send this over to the board, they should be getting back to us within 72 hours."

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

In the case of abortion, the mother likely caused the child to come into existence, she is responsible and therefore her rights are secondary. Further, if the child dies as a result of her actions, she is responsible for a greater harm so her rights are secondary.

Literally enslaving women to a blob of tissue. 

[West]

Democrats just love suing catholic nuns like good little commie pos for not murdering babies in the womb..sad 

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, West said:

Democrats just love suing catholic nuns like good little commie pos for not murdering babies in the womb..sad 

Providence Healthcare isn’t “a bunch of nuns.”  They’re a massive multibillion dollar highly profitable conglomerate that paid its CEO $10 million.  
 

I’ve used one of their hospitals and it was great and I appreciate it.  But pretending that it’s a church is ridiculous.  

Edited October 2, 2024 by Rebound

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why should the woman have more rights than the baby?

Because it's FETUS not a BABY nor a human being.

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The baby didn't ask to be brought into existence.

It's NOT A BABY. Your repeated appeal to emotion fallacy only illustrates YOUR DESPERATION.

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

In the overwhelming majority of abortions, the baby is not the result of rape. So it isn't like the woman didn't know she could be pregnant. So why does she get to create them kill that human?

Because she is a citizen with FREEDOMS to make her OWN healthcare decisions.

You want the government telling you to have a vasectomy?

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

There are no problems over here, robomarx. There's just me teaching you about your dependency on woke wankery. You're like a crack addict. lol

YOU KNOW NOTHING you can "teach" anyone here, cause all you have is BULLSHIT.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, West said:

Democrats just love suing catholic nuns like good little commie pos for not murdering babies in the womb..sad 

You're delusional if you believe nuns have any power in the catholic church.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

Who decides whether the child is killing the mother? The doctor who recommended an abortion to save the mother’s life?

Yes. The doctor. Or doctors if you feel there's a need for a second opinion. 

Quote

What if the doctor says the chances of the mother dying is 90%? 50%? 25%?

well... what if? What's your point?

Quote

Who should decide?  YOU???? Or the mother and her doctor?

Traditionally the hospitals doctors would consult with each other and develop a policy long before the situation was critical. Failing that of course legislators should be passing laws if it's unclear or they disagree with what the hospitals are doing provided they can do so in accordance with whatever rights the business may have. 

There's nothing particularly weird about that. Decisions of this type are made all of the time with things such as organ transplants and so on risk assessment is part of medical services.

Quote

 Why do you think this is any of your business? 

If you accept the premise that The fetus is a child at that point and therefore human rights have attached it is absolutely the business of the members of society to protect the young. Always has been. 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yes. The doctor. Or doctors if you feel there's a need for a second opinion. 

well... what if? What's your point?

Traditionally the hospitals doctors would consult with each other and develop a policy long before the situation was critical. Failing that of course legislators should be passing laws if it's unclear or they disagree with what the hospitals are doing provided they can do so in accordance with whatever rights the business may have. 

There's nothing particularly weird about that. Decisions of this type are made all of the time with things such as organ transplants and so on risk assessment is part of medical services.

If you accept the premise that The fetus is a child at that point and therefore human rights have attached it is absolutely the business of the members of society to protect the young. Always has been. 

How come you didn’t demand Obama’s conception certificate?

How come the Constitution grants citizenship based on where you’re born, not where you’re conceived? 
 

I the entire nation has long-standing agreement that a third trimester fetus is viable and cannot be aborted on demand, unless there is a serious medical reason why. That was the Roe v Wade standard.  Late term abortion as birth control is not something doctors in even liberal states will perform.  But medical complications can occur and the government has no business making them. 

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Because it's FETUS not a BABY nor a human being.

It isn't human? What mental gymnastics did you go through to arrive at that conclusion?

From the moment the sperm implants with the egg, it is human.

 

Quote

You want the government telling you to have a vasectomy?

Lmao...what? We're you drinking heavily after Walz got his butt kicked last night? That would make the most sense. If not, man....that's unbelievably bad.

[Nationalist]

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course you want YOUR VERSION of "morally" to be forced on EVERYONE ELSE. 🤮

As do you...Tweenkie-Poo.

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why should the woman have more rights than the baby? The baby didn't ask to be brought into existence. In the overwhelming majority of abortions, the baby is not the result of rape. So it isn't like the woman didn't know she could be pregnant. So why does she get to create them kill that human?

The 15-week old FETUS was already non-viable dipshit. That means it had zero chance of survival, as proven by the fact that one of the twins inside her was already dead. 
 

The right insists that pregnant women should die along with their non-viable zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses because that’s what they signed up for when they decided to get pregnant or even to have sex. And that’s a perfect example of the vile and despicable ideology they follow. 

Edited October 2, 2024 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

How come you didn’t demand Obama’s conception certificate?

I see.  So you didn't have a rational argument so you chose to go with stupid.  Odd choice but you do you  

Are you trying to suggest that the second before he actually popped out he wasn't a living human being?  Explain what magic the birth channel has that moving through it a few inches suddenly biologically converts someone from a lump of flesh into a human  

 

Quote

How come the Constitution grants citizenship based on where you’re born, not where you’re conceived? 

Impossilbe to prove where you were conceived. Easy to show where you were born. 
 

Quote

I the entire nation has long-standing agreement that a third trimester fetus is viable and cannot be aborted on demand, unless there is a serious medical reason why. That was the Roe v Wade standard.  Late term abortion as birth control is not something doctors in even liberal states will perform.  But medical complications can occur and the government has no business making them. 

The entire nation had a long standing agreement about slavery.  Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Further roe vs wade has been found to be an erroneous judgement, so the restrictions in placed weren't an 'aggreement", they were forced upon the states by an order of the courts having found abortion to be constitutionally protected which wasn't in fact the case. 

And many states did not have the third trimester law.  Sorry.  

So at the end of the day, it boils down to trying to decide at what point an egg becomes  a human.  We can all agree an unfertilized egg is not a human being.  And we can all agree that by the time it grows and starts attending college it probably is.    Somewhere in between those two points it goes from being just a collection of cells to a human with rights attached. 

As things are now, the states must decide for themselves where that line is.  And that is their job. It is not the job of a judicial activist. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

 

It's NOT A BABY. Your repeated appeal to emotion fallacy only illustrates YOUR DESPERATION.

 

Reaaaallly  

Ok - well define 'human being' then. What's your definition of human being? and it has to be symertical - it has to apply equally to describing when someone stops being one or starts being one because that's how definitions work. 

Please - give us a definition of human being that is logically and medically sound and not simply a preference. 

Betcha can't   And if you can't then you cannot say @gatomontes99  is wrong.

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The 15-week old FETUS was already non-viable dipshit. That means it had zero chance of survival, as proven by the fact that one of the twins inside her was already dead. 
 

The right insists that pregnant women should die along with their non-viable zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses because that’s what they signed up for when they decided to get pregnant or even to have sex. And that’s a perfect example of the vile and despicable ideology they follow. 

We had moved on from that case to abortion in general. You might do well to see my posts that are specific to this case. I said that the hospital probably made a mistake in not treating this woman.

[BeaverFever]

Melania Trump passionately defends abortion rights in upcoming memoir

Exclusive: ‘I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life,’ former first lady writes in memoir

 

 

Melania Trump made an extraordinary declaration in an eagerly awaited memoir to be published a month from election day: she is a passionate supporter of a woman’s right to control her own body – including the right to abortion.

“It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government,” the Republican nominee’s wife writes, amid a campaign in which Donald Trump’s threats to women’s reproductive rights have played a central role.

 

“Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.

“Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”

Melania Trump has rarely expressed political views in public. The book, which reveals the former first lady to be so firmly out of step with most of her own party, Melania, will be published in the US next Tuesday. The Guardian obtained a copy.

Her decision to include a full-throated expression of support for abortion rights is remarkable not just given her proximity to a Republican candidate running on an anti-abortion platform, but also given the severe deterioration of women’s reproductive rights under Donald Trump and the GOP…. 

…

She writes: “It is important to note that historically, most abortions conducted during the later stages of pregnancy were the result of severe fetal abnormalities that probably would have led to the death or stillbirth of the child. Perhaps even the death of the mother. These cases were extremely rare and typically occurred after several consultations between the woman and her doctor. As a community, we should embrace these common-sense standards. Again, timing matters.”

More than 90% of US abortions occur at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to data from the CDC. Less than 1% of abortions take place at or after 21 weeks….

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights?utm_term=66fe1a47783fc84c94c039aa425e06ec&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email

Edited October 3, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Melania Trump passionately defends abortion rights in upcoming memoir

Exclusive: ‘I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life,’ former first lady writes in memoir

 

 

Melania Trump made an extraordinary declaration in an eagerly awaited memoir to be published a month from election day: she is a passionate supporter of a woman’s right to control her own body – including the right to abortion.

“It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government,” the Republican nominee’s wife writes, amid a campaign in which Donald Trump’s threats to women’s reproductive rights have played a central role.

 

“Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.

“Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”

Melania Trump has rarely expressed political views in public. The book, which reveals the former first lady to be so firmly out of step with most of her own party, Melania, will be published in the US next Tuesday. The Guardian obtained a copy.

Her decision to include a full-throated expression of support for abortion rights is remarkable not just given her proximity to a Republican candidate running on an anti-abortion platform, but also given the severe deterioration of women’s reproductive rights under Donald Trump and the GOP…. 

…

She writes: “It is important to note that historically, most abortions conducted during the later stages of pregnancy were the result of severe fetal abnormalities that probably would have led to the death or stillbirth of the child. Perhaps even the death of the mother. These cases were extremely rare and typically occurred after several consultations between the woman and her doctor. As a community, we should embrace these common-sense standards. Again, timing matters.”

More than 90% of US abortions occur at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to data from the CDC. Less than 1% of abortions take place at or after 21 weeks….

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights?utm_term=66fe1a47783fc84c94c039aa425e06ec&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email

Ghost writer conducts epic trolling! 🤣

[Nationalist]

On 10/1/2024 at 8:51 PM, Hodad said:

B. It's not a person in that it lacks the basic characteristics of personhood. It has no identify, no sense of self, no autonomy, no ability to process information. If an extra-uterine human has that level of cognition we understand that it has passed beyond personhood. We call it a "vegetable" and pull the plug. 

C. You can snip the irrelevant first three paragraphs of your reply. There is no tenable philosophy that proposes that either the intended or unintended consequences of a sex act magically create a supremacy of rights. 

And indeed, if you really want to make an argument for the supremacy of fetal rights, you can no longer give consideration to the life and health of the pregnant person. In such a cockamamie scheme, they must die before terminating a pregnancy.

Your mother does not owe you her blood and tissue, period. If you try to take it from her, she is well within her legal and moral rights to defend herself against you. Go ahead. Try it. See how that goes. 

 

We've been over this whole "personhood" thing. By the end of the first trimester, the baby is aware.

But you want to treat babies like a virus. I find that more than a little destestable. I hope your not a father.

[Hodad]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

We've been over this whole "personhood" thing. By the end of the first trimester, the baby is aware.

But you want to treat babies like a virus. I find that more than a little destestable. I hope your not a father.

The fetus was 15 weeks. Keep up.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

The fetus was 15 weeks. Keep up.

Actually...as I read this thread...you'd moved on from that.

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We've been over this whole "personhood" thing. By the end of the first trimester, the baby is aware.

But you want to treat babies like a virus. I find that more than a little destestable. I hope your not a father.

You have no way of knowing what a fetus is thinking or not. It's pure speculation. 

[Nationalist]

On 10/1/2024 at 7:13 PM, Hodad said:

A. The pregnant person is indisputably a person. 

B. The fetus is not a person

C. Even if the fetus were a person with full equal rights, it would no more entitled to inhabit the host's body--steal the blood and tissue, and inflict medical and psychological trauma--than any other person. 

Your mother brought you into the world, but you can't take her blood or her kidney, not any other part of her simply because of that relationship. She can willingly donate either, but you're not entitled to take them against her will.

This is what's wrong with the Libbie perspective. They view the beauty of creation as theft. An imposition. They deny nature itself.