Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It wouldn't be okay to kill either. A late-term abortion is one thing, but once the child is born, then it should be cared for even if born with health-impairing abnormalities. The parents could put the child up for adoption if they don't want it.
Well the governor apparently thinks it should be legal to kill a baby in that situation. Thank god he won't get his way...for now.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It wouldn't be okay to kill either. A late-term abortion is one thing, but once the child is born, then it should be cared for even if born with health-impairing abnormalities. The parents could put the child up for adoption if they don't want it.
So as long as the baby is even 1 second away from birth, a late term abortion is ok?
Originally posted by Silent Master
So as long as the baby is even 1 second away from birth, a late term abortion is ok?
What part of this is so ****ing hard for you clowns to understand?
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
If it puts the mother's health or life at risk, as noted in the proposed law in New York, and there is no other way to help her, yes.What part of this is so ****ing hard for you clowns to understand?
You keep ignoring how vague the law is written, which multiple people have pointed out. so just to be clear if the mother states that her "mental health" would be effected. you are ok with a 1 second before birth late-term abortion?
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
If it puts the mother's health or life at risk, as noted in the proposed law in New York, and there is no other way to help her, yes.What part of this is so ****ing hard for you clowns to understand?
How hard is it to understand the language of this law isn't just about life at risk due to how the word "health" is interpreted by the previous court cases.
Another Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, says "health" refers to "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient" when it comes to an abortion.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Thanks man. That was five years ago. 🙂 my daughter is a bundle of energy and a little too smart for my own good. Has her mom’s spunk, too.Anyway, but if you look deeper into the definition of “health”, it can go further than just rape and incest. One of the purposes of law is to prevent abuse. And as such the law should be worded to prevent abuse, not welcome it. I’m not a lawyer but I feel that law is so broad that just about anything can be package to fall into it.
There are always extreme cases. Rape and incest are a few reasons regarding what may constitute a “mental health risk” but the wording of “mental/emotional/familial health risk” is vague and can easily be abused. It would have been easier to just define specifically the extreme cases rather than create a very vague terminology when human life is at stake. Even you have to agree that the current abortion laws are pretty loose already and women have gotten abortions for very selfish reasons and that this law has simply extended this discretion up to birth.
That child is not her body, it is dependent on her but she does not own it. And that law covers the killing up to an undoubtably fully formed person. Someone who can feel pain and fear and can even listen to music and react to it. The child is not her property that she can simply dispose of, he’/she’s a person. The whole “it’s my body” argument at this point is BS to me at this point, tbh. It is no longer about “not life” vs “my body”, it the factually the life of a human being vs the idea of choice being absolute. Sooner or later we have to decide w/c is more important.
Can a doctor opt out of saving a patient’s life if they don’t want to? It’s their body after all, so it’s choice, isn’t it? And she could always opt out by delivering the baby early. Not a great solution, I agree but I feel that it’s still better than outright murder.
Question, if you were dangling off a cliff and you grabbed onto my arm to save yourself, and we got stuck in that position for a few hours (let’s say there’s a danger to me, but it isn’t that much) is it ok for me to punch you off my arm? What if I took my gun and shot you in the head so my arm is freed? Is that legal (seriously, I don’t know)?
There should already be no question whether a child an hour away from delivery vs a child just delivered are different or not. Those are the same living human beings. There is literally no difference other than their location.
I still have to ask again though: Is there a limit to this “choice” position of yours? At one point is too much? What about post-birth? Can you at least agree that NOW, NOW this is basically the legalized killing of human beings?
Originally posted by darthgoober
I believe the answer to your question is "yes", it is legal to punch or shoot someone if you're both hanging off a cliff and their hanging onto you to save yourself. In a life or death situation where it's a one on one encounter, you're allowed to choose to be the one who lives. I think it's actually a pretty far reaching standard in fact. For instance, if you and your friend are on a boat at sea that sinks and your friend's wearing a life jacket while you're not and you're at serious risk of drowning, you're allowed to kill your friend and take the life jacket for yourself. Or in the movie Saw where the one person had a the equivalent of a bear-trap set to a timer stuck on her head and the key was in the stomach of the other guy, she was legally allowed to gut him and get that key. At least that's the law as I understand it, things may changed since I was last exposed to the question.
My scenario wasn’t life or death tho. It was “slight risk to self but mostly you’re stuck in one place temporarily til help arrives” vs killing someone who is dependent on you to keep themselves alive. Of course you can argue that there was sufficient risk to life if you wish in court but that’s not really the scenario I’m going for here.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
My scenario wasn’t life or death tho. It was “slight risk to self but mostly you’re stuck in one place temporarily til help arrives” vs killing someone who is dependent on you to keep themselves alive. Of course you can argue that there was sufficient risk to life if you wish in court but that’s not really the scenario I’m going for here.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Actually hanging off a cliff is always a life or death situation. No one can hang with the weight of another person added to their own without being in imminent danger of dying.
You’re not hanging, your friend is. You’re safely positioned at the edge of it but you are stuck at that postion til herlp arrives. There is always risk in everything but let’s say that you were so strapped in that the risk was extremely low and that your friend wasn’t that heavy (let’s say that your friend is a 50 lb midget) and you’re more than strong enough to support the weight over that period with some inconvenience and maybe a small risk of injury to your arm. Only risk to your life is if the bindings holding you would break and you know (being a climbing instructor) that there is only a remote .025% chance of that ever happening.
I feel that me having to overspecifcy a hypothetical scenario where I already provided the conditions kinda makes us lose the spirit of what a hypothetical scenario is supposed to illustrate....
Originally posted by snowdragon
How hard is it to understand the language of this law isn't just about life at risk due to how the word "health" is interpreted by the previous court cases.
Sounds like she could go "I don't wanna experience post partum depression" and that would be a valid excuse.
Or even "a lack of sleep due to the baby will impact my mental health".
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
If it puts the mother's health or life at risk, as noted in the proposed law in New York, and there is no other way to help her, yes.What part of this is so ****ing hard for you clowns to understand?
Are you feigning ignorance or being disengenuous here man? We’ve already stated the problem we have with how vague the law is written and the previous court cases that defined what that can constitute.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
You’re not hanging, your friend is. You’re safely positioned at the edge of it but you are stuck at that postion til herlp arrives. There is always risk in everything but let’s say that you were so strapped in that the risk was extremely low and that your friend wasn’t that heavy (let’s say that your friend is a 50 lb midget) and you’re more than strong enough to support the weight over that period with some inconvenience and maybe a small risk of injury to your arm. Only risk to your life is if the bindings holding you would break and you know (being a climbing instructor) that there is only a remote .025% chance of that ever happening.I feel that me having to overspecifcy a hypothetical scenario where I already provided the conditions kinda makes us lose the spirit of what a hypothetical scenario is supposed to illustrate....
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of late term abortions or anything like that, I was simply trying to answer the question you posed to the best of my ability.
Originally posted by darthgoober
That's the thing about hypothetical scenarios though, the devil is in the details lol. And even in the more specifically "safe" scenario you revised, it would likely still depend upon even more details. The whole thing would obviously be extremely painful for the person strapped in if there's risk of actual injury to his arm, and pain is yet another form of duress because humans can only stand so much of it and you're talking about a situation that stretches out over the course of hours.Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of late term abortions or anything like that, I was simply trying to answer the question you posed to the best of my ability.
I’ve injured my arm before, it’s not really that bad (both my rotator cuffs got dislocated to the point I can pop both of them off at will now, grosses ppl out lol), I’d say appendicitis (my appendix burst) was still the worst for me but yeah let’s say it gets quite painful. Would it be right then for me to take out my gun and shoot him in the head as he doesn’t wanna let go (as he will die)? Would that be more of a “I couldn’t take the pain anymore” kinda reasoning that would be acceptable in court? I’m thinking that would be the argument? What if it is an anticipation of pain (you know that help won’t arrive for an hour so you expect it to hurt eventually) so you just popped him in the head before the pain arrived (and that is provable in court)?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I’ve injured my arm before, it’s not really that bad (both my rotator cuffs got dislocated to the point I can pop both of them off at will now, grosses ppl out lol), I’d say appendicitis (my appendix burst) was still the worst for me but yeah let’s say it gets quite painful. Would it be right then for me to take out my gun and shoot him in the head as he doesn’t wanna let go (as he will die)? Would that be more of a “I couldn’t take the pain anymore” kinda reasoning that would be acceptable in court? I’m thinking that would be the argument? What if it is an anticipation of pain (you know that help won’t arrive for an hour so you expect it to hurt eventually) so you just popped him in the head before the pain arrived (and that is provable in court)?
Well unless I'm mistaken, in general both the imminent danger and "I couldn't take the pain anymore" scenarios fall under the heading of legal heading duress, which does justify the committing of what would otherwise be considered to be evil acts. As to whether or not a particular situation is severe enough to qualify as legal duress is a matter of fact, not law, and is therefore generally decided by a jury rather than a judge if a District Attorney decides to prosecute the "evil act" in question.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Didn't the "Governor" of VA just endorse letting babies die who had failed abortions?
This is what he said:
"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he continued. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
He then tried to clarify that he was talking only about babies with severe abnormalities.
But the bigger deal is that he was in a racist photo in the 80s...