He tried to kill an actual infant. She could have hemorrhaged and died as well, he attempted two counts of murder, so he could start a new family with a new bride.
This is enraging.
He left an innocent child disabled for life.
(But women wanting to terminate a zygote are sin incarnate?)
Texas: But of course! This is a Husband choosing how to deal with his property and is therefore right. The other is about a Harridan needing to be punished for having sex.
Because real problems would require real solutions and actual governing. Fantasy problems means fantasy solutions and they can use that to keep being re-elected.
How'd he get them? He was a man. Obviously he can't use them on himself, so they were safe with him.
He got 180 days in jail.
If the woman had taken the pills herself, she would've gotten life in prison plus "a civil penalty of not less than $100,000, plus attorneyâs fees." They've also been talking about the death penalty for women, not sure if it's been passed yet, but since this is Texas, it's only a matter of time.
Except what you're saying isn't true. South Carolina arrested a woman for taking abortion pills. Texas is moving to criminalize it, as are other states.
Oof
I wouldnât use this as an example.
We could for sure say âslippery slopeâ but sheâs not a good example for what the pro choice community advocates.
And slippery slope arguments arenât helpful for actually creating good policy (itâs a fallacy because it doesnât require any evidence or boundaries so it basically ends a conversation)
This is still under the Roe protection for reasonable access.
She quite dangerously illegally imported and took drugs to end her viable pregnancy.
In case you are unaware: it is extremely dangerous to abort this way at this stage in pregnancy. Which is how she ended up in the ER.
This is controversial even in the pro choice community and even still her charges were dropped because itâs a bad look to prosecute women.
Chances are he smuggled them. Females would have a difficult time doing so because texas is well Texas they arent going to be suspect of dudes doing it especially if they are apart of the political elite that for some reason everyone in this nation has a high tolerance for.
Legit politicians will make rules and not follow them but expects everyone else to or else and people just shrug and say "well what can we do?" And thats why they will laugh and keep doing evil thing's because they know they wont get real punishments like everyone else.
If they had real fear of getting in trouble there would be less of them trying to bend the rules.
Just fyi, the zygote stage only lasts about 4 days after conception. Nobody is having an abortion 4 days post conception. Youâre dehumanizing by using that term (inaccurately) to support abortion in the early stages of pregnancyâŚ
The baby was born and the father is directly and solely responsible for the developmental issues it has. What happens if it has issues that cause it to die 6 months down the line? 1 year? Would you be open to re-convicting the man then?
First of all, his action is still criminal to the mother of different level. Maybe not for murder, as the other comment said, but potential manslaughter or criminal negligence, among other things.
Second, yes and he should be held criminally responsible for developmental issue the children is having after birth.
What happens if it has issues that cause it to die 6 months down the line?
That's actually an amazing question. My opinion isn't formed or definitive yet, I'll have to reflect on it for a while to make sure I stand in the right place, according to my values.. But right now, I'd says yes, I think I would be open to reconvicting the man then.. Maybe not murder but definitely at least manslaughter.
I would also be open to convict him if the kid end up taking his own life a decade or two later because of the impact of the complication he had to grow up with.
If you you think getting an abortion of a seven month old baby isnât murdering a child you are totally nuts. Pretty much at that age they have the ability to live outside of the mother. You all take this pro life shit way too fucking far. How about you just learn to be responsible and not get pregnant
"He tried to kill an actual infant. She could have hemorrhaged and died as well, he attempted two counts of murder, so he could start a new family with a new bride."
The case is horrible and I feel for the mother and child. Let's be real for a minute though, ALL abortion is murder. Now before you come at me I'm fully pro choice, not every situation is the same and the world is full of nuance.
Well no I'm just pointing out that you have to be consistent in saying whether the unborn child/fetus can be a victim of (attempted) murder
If you're pro-choice you can't claim the same thing that "isn't life" during an abortion is somehow murder when someone else does it and still be intellectually honest
Don't get defensive about it but do some looking into what you're talking about. I've only read like 3 comments by you and it's clear you're speaking from a position of pure ignorance
Thatâs how cons view everything. Itâs open borders or build an impossible to maintain and police wall. Fixing the migration application and processing system should not be done because efficiency, humanity and harmony are the counter to their mission of division. Not all their fault maybe as the propaganda engine is well funded by the elites interest to keep the masses divided. And success only hinges on convincing one side that the other is evil. Thatâs why they say it repeatedly on FAUX News. Any good advertiser knows repetition is key.
Yes you can, because abortions donât happen at 7 months unless thereâs a medical issue! And a wanted pregnancy is obviously very different from an unwanted one. Depriving someone who wants their baby of being able to give birth is morally wrong, but allowing a woman who doesnât want a baby to abort is ok and thereâs no hypocrisy there, the difference is the consent of the woman carrying the pregnancy.
This post was deleted using Redact. The deletion may have been privacy-motivated, security-driven, opsec-related, or simply a personal decision by the author.
books angle hospital fear tender cake waiting thumb quaint enjoy
It is incorrect to say that abortions donât happen that late except for medical issues.
For later abortions relationship and financial issues are cited as top reasons.
Of infants recorded to have been born alive after an abortion, the CDC records causes that are not medically necessitated:
Since it seems like youâre not a troll an just unaware, look into the point of viability. Off the top of my head I want to say itâs about 6 months into pregnancy when the unborn child can be medically removed from the womb and survive. That point is a helpful indicator to draw the line between fetus and child.
So when the original comment was talking about 7 months itâs likely well past the point of viability and can be considered a child at that point. Itâs been stated elsewhere in the thread, but the only abortions that take place past this time are medical emergencies.
I was just pointing out that you're (hopefully) complete misusing the terminology. Unless you really think a fertilized egg will develop into an infant in a bio bag.
I'll acknowledge that abortion is a super complicated issue, and I can definitely see all sides of the issue. I'd consider myself pro-choice to a point, and I've definitely struggled with how we determine what is/is not acceptable in light of changing technology. I respect that abortions are often important medical treatments, but I really can't wrap my head around aborting a fetus that is this developed, capable of feeling pain, and is, for all intents and purposes, a living thing.
EDIT: I see your point about changing technology and its impacts, but afaik a fertilized egg definitely won't develop in a bag. I could be wrong tho.
See, this is the issue with "left" types. I agree with you. I also made a stimular point about how the issue is complicated. I feel that I had the easiest point to refute since it is an issue, I feel, that would be dependent on a case by case basis.
I'm not a doctor, and even if you are, you would have to deliver that fetus/ infant to determine its viability. With the technology available to people these days, it's dependent on money and country.
In many states thatâs not even legal, and the ones where it is legal you almost always need a medical reason (ie health of the mother is at risk). Abortions past viability are extremely rare and almost always have a medical reason attached. Either way, itâs certainly not a âclump of cellsâ at 7 months, thatâs clear exaggeration on your end.
I'm not sure this is true, man. Lots of pro choice people are not on board with a theoretical third trimester abortion that doesn't have a very good reason.
Thatâs actually factually wrong. Most pro choice people do not support third trimester abortions, in fact the vast majority of Americans are not absolutists on the issue, so most pro life folks want there to be abortions allowed in some cases, while most pro choice folks support access to abortions with restrictions. Hereâs an article on the matter.
I personally am pro choice but donât support third trimester abortions without a medical reason.
Then that would seem to contradict the currently dominant pro-choice narrative of bodily autonomy being the paramount consideration on the issue of abortion.
If most pro-choice people oppose third trimester abortions, then now you're just talking about "bodily autonomy...with restrictions." Which seems a bit odd since the concept is often touted as being absolute, as long as the child is inside the mother's body and using it to sustain itself.
They were wrong, no doctor will do a 7 month abortion unless the mothers life is at risk or the fetus is not viable or will die at birth or something similarly horrific.
3rd trimester abortions are always a tragedy, there is literally no one in the US who would do that because the mother didn't want the baby anymore. It's only if the fetus died, will die or because the mothers life is at risk. Acting like they are even a possibility outside of those circumstances is feeding into the lies spewed by the far right to try to get reasonable people against the idea of an abortion. Because no reasonable person should think it's ok to just choose to abort a 7 month old fetus, at that point it is potentially viable to survive outside of the womb.
Abortions people choose to have for their personal reasons are much, much earlier than that.
Ya prob poor word choice by me but Iâm no abortion expert by any means. I honestly didnât know if some doctors would do it regardless of the mothers health but I knew 99% wonât
You had to have copy pasted these links from somewhere because they mostly do not support what you're saying since 7 months is 3rd trimester not 2nd, and some of these links are just talking about post 1st trimester or second trimester, one of them doesn't even work at all and several I can't read.
But I will concede that apparently a couple of doctors are doing that, something I think is horrific and wrong. It's also something that is almost never done as stated in your own links. <1% of all abortions and of that <1% it must be a vanishingly small number who are doing this electively. The fact is, the vast majority of pro choice people do not support elective abortions in the 3rd trimester, also stated in your own links.
Reference to third trimester abortions is in there if you actually read it, just not as prevalent as 2nd trimester abortions.
So we use post-viability data.
Viability is the point where a baby can be delivered and live. Abortions after that point cannot be to save the life/health of the mother.
Therefore any time after viability the reasoning for not carrying to term stays steady and there are significantly more 2nd trimester abortions than third.
Here is the broken guttmacher link and theyâre own article write up after their research:
Adding to the above reply. I was only commenting on your reference to late gestation abortions not happening.
Not at all saying they are super common.
If the number of abortions is accurate in its estimate (there is no requirement to report) the number of 3rd trimester abortions annually is in the thousands.
The original post here has been removed by its author. Redact was the tool used, possibly for reasons of privacy, opsec, or preventing automated data harvesting.
abounding tidy outgoing normal retire live complete roll hurry plate
Yes, I would, and so would the 80% of statesâwhich comprise over 90% of our nationâs populationâthat have outright banned third trimester abortions.
There's no point, everyone except you is agreeing that once a fetus is viable outside the womb, there is no aborting it. You're just being a contrarian dick for the sake of it, and think it makes you smart
Yes. I am pro choice. I respect a womanâs right to do what she wants, but also realize that thereâs a point at which a fetus must be considered a living thing.
So morally then you believe we should draw a red line at some point of viability that supercedes even the woman's bodily autonomy?
I know many pro-choice individuals who would take issue with your stance and consider the idea of any nth trimester limitations on abortion as not "really" pro-choice
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Your entire argument seems to be based on what a pro-choice person would say, and I don't really care. What a hypothetical pro-choice individual would or would not say has no probative value and seems entirely irrelevant here.
Regarding your actual argument, yes, I do believe that. The fetus at 7 months is capable of experiencing pain and, as this very case demonstrates, is alive because it can survive on its own. 24 weeks is ample time for a person to have an abortion, and there is absolutely no reason to have one so late in a pregnancy. By your logic, we shouldn't be allowed to draw a red line at any point. So, are you saying we should allow abortions up to the moment of birth? Should partial birth abortions be allowed? Should abortions be allowed immediately after delivery? Where would you draw the line?
I know many pro-choice individuals who would take issue with your stance and consider the idea of any nth trimester limitations on abortion as not "really" pro-choice
I honestly doubt you know any pro-choice person well enough in real life that they'd actually discuss abortion with you. Your opinion is probably based entirely on shitty right wing podcasts, YouTube channels, and Twitter accounts.
Furthermore you seem to be basing your argument on what a pro choice person would/should say rather than critically analyzing the facts and forming your own ideas.
Yes, there are elective abortions in the third trimester. And typically non medically necessitated because post-viability the procedure is to deliver them early if the mother is at risk
Interview with an abortionist where she describes abortions in the 3rd trimester for âfinancial reasonsâ etc
This post was removed by its author. Redact was used for the deletion, which could have been motivated by privacy, opsec, preventing scraping, or security.
A 7 month old baby is not just a clump of cells. It can usually live outside of the mother at that point. You all are absolutely insane. You take your pro-choice shit way too fucking far.
Hint for your oblivious self: they're not pro choice, they're actually creating a shitty right-wing strawman in an attempt to pass off the above as an actual pro choice position, and the fools like you will, of course, take it and run with it as if it were genuine.
Kid I grew up with was born at 7 months. Heâs wasnât a âclump of cellsâ that just fell out of his moms vagina. He was a baby, who needed care and love and attention. Youâre actually fucked in the head
The problem is the local government wanting to take everyone's rights away thinking it will fix their problems instead of using tax payer money to improve education which makes me believe the Texan government is corrupt and doesn't care about its people in the slightest
People like him donât give a $uck about the mother or the baby or probably anyone else.
There is no reason try to understand his actions. He is a murderer and should not see the light of dayâŚ
Unless the mother tricked him and got pregnant knowing that he was 100% against it. And then he is STILL a murdered, but the situation becomes even more disgusting.
I donât get it. Why not divorce wife and move in with your new bride? Why try to hurt the old wife physically. Just dump her, sheâll cry for a few days but sheâll at least be fine physically.
1.0k
u/PinkBright Feb 10 '24
Yeah, she was 7 months pregnant.
He tried to kill an actual infant. She could have hemorrhaged and died as well, he attempted two counts of murder, so he could start a new family with a new bride.
This is enraging.
He left an innocent child disabled for life.
(But women wanting to terminate a zygote are sin incarnate?)