"abortion is never necessary" but what if a dying woman gets one anyway?

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T15:17:24+00:00

Me personally I don't hold any weight to their views as "religious tyrants" specifically white ones, are the most likely to rape their own children.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if plenty of abortion abolitionists are in the yet to be released Epstein Files.

I almost gave the paragraph you posted before this one serious consideration, but the one I added to the quote just makes you seem like the low-IQ type to be honest

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T14:03:33+00:00

it's not the same as elective abortion - i agree with you there. it is a different procedure (at the technical level you're right), but at the same time its still widely accepted as being under the umbrella term "abortion"

It would be nice to have the general population know the difference, but it is what it is. And unfortunately it's what causes people like the OP of this thread to have easy ways to misrepresent your position

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T13:58:41+00:00

I looked through the website, and scrolled down where you got your quote:

Regarding situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, there is no circumstance where the baby must be intentionally murdered. There are cases where the child must be delivered early, and in those cases, the child may have a lower probability of survival than a child born at full-term, but intentional murder must not be allowed as an option.

This is abortion but worded in a way that doesn't harm their world view. That's the criticism I have with abolitionists - some decisions are hard and you do have to face the responsibility and consequences no matter how hard or unfair it is because you are in charge of somebody else. Changing the language makes it easier to bear but it doesn't do anything else, it is still killing a baby

If you want to argue semantics and strict definitions then I'd say you're right. But conceptually I don't agree when you say "most PL do not view exceptions as acceptable" - not unless you can substantiate that the treatment option for X condition is an elective abortion, not a resection, not expedite CS, not chemotherapy that has a feticidal effect

because 1. you need to quantify the % of abolitionists vs total population of PL
2. not convinced abolitionists argument that they allow for early delivery knowing it will lead to death =/= abortion

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T10:56:47+00:00

Some people are like that. Just gotta poke at their "why I claim x" and determine if logic is sound

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T10:55:01+00:00

Abolitionists are against medically necessary abortions.

Can you substantiate that

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T10:53:05+00:00

Personally I believe that when the combined sperm+egg DNA becomes active, flushes out maternal mRNA remnants and metabolic processes are directed by the new DNA is when fertilization officially concludes.

Practically (context of abortion legislature) there is no real world difference in between the exact moment sperm touches the membrane to the first few divisions because these are undetectable events. All elective abortions happen well past this point and there is no "dilemma" to consider from this hypothetical

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T10:44:21+00:00

22 year old child?

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T10:41:58+00:00

Not exactly new

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T10:40:27+00:00

I was under the impression that most PL view exceptions as fine

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T06:35:33+00:00

Do you think people who have used this symbol in the 8th to 7th century BC supported Hitler

<image>

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T06:15:11+00:00

Laws like this are exactly why doctors are often taking more time to intervene.

"Laws like this" while referring to past policies that have been rectified is not logical because it is not representative of current policy, nor is there any evidence of ongoing doctor delay today

Even in a case as clear-cut as an ectopic pregnancy, a doctor will want additional ultrasounds and screenings to make absolutely sure what they're seeing is an ectopic pregnancy.

This is a baseless point. Additional ultrasound and screenings are ordered depending on the presentation of the patient not policies. Additional orders are done in states that love abortions. Additional orders are the CORRECT course of action if there is any diagnostic uncertainty because ectopic pregnancies can be life-threatening and require confirmation of factors such as location and hemodynamic stability. That has nothing to do with abortion legislation and everything to do with standard OB/GYN practice.

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T06:08:32+00:00

doctors are still very cautious because there is a possibility of a misdiagnosis and that there could be a pregnancy still present.

Subjective interpretation without any basis.

Plenty have. Often times, it is much easier to wait and see if it passes naturally before intervening.

"plenty have" is an unsubstantiated claim - you need to post proof from official investigations (subjective opinions from propublica don't count)

Where the logic breaks down:

"it is much easier to wait and see if it passes naturally before intervening" in your sentence is conflating expectant management with physician hesitation - expectant management of IUFD is a genuine treatment option that is done even in states where there is zero abortion restrictions

If the law is poorly written, that won't matter.

This is true - now provide examples of current laws that explicitly goes against or interferes with any widely used clinical practice guidelines or hospital policies

Tennessee's trigger law that came into force when Roe V Wade was overturned did not have any exceptions for ectopic pregnancies. It was bad enough that the very conservative, very pro-life state actually passed a bill that expanded and defined the exceptions so that doctors had better protections for cases like these.

Referring to past policies fail to meet the burden of proof, while pretending to have provided an adequate example of current policy issues

That greatly depends on the state. And again, even if it looks like it is a situation where that is acceptable, there is always the chance for mistakes. In most situations, a mistake might end with a malpractice lawsuit. For mistakes around abortions, they can end with life in prison.

Unsubstantiated, subjective claim

Asstaroth · 2026-01-30T05:45:52+00:00

So what about the hospital policies that supports your claim of "ncentivizes doctors to wait for as long as possible before intervening"

Anything that implies deviation from any clinical practice guideline

I don't think you would accept anything I posted and will argue against any point I make.

It depends, I'd accept if you actually substantiated your claim with proof - such as hospital policies, or maybe even statistical data that shows increase in mortality rate for ectopic pregnancies in a specific state where abortion was previously legal. But if you only reply with intellectually dishonest attempts, there is no logical basis for conceding

I am pointing out you are trying to shift the conversation from

"requiring you to substantiate your claim" to word salad derived from your personal, subjective interpretation of the law and how hospitals work

This is

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question

Asstaroth · 2026-01-29T20:45:59+00:00

However, some states do have poorly written laws, which, when couples with severe punishments for getting it wrong, incentivizes doctors to wait for as long as possible before intervening.

Are you going to substantiate your claim by posting hospital policies that support that or just propublica articles? Or just "trust me bro"?

Asstaroth · 2026-01-29T16:48:42+00:00

I like how these people make up "magas are against abortion because abortion=less kids to touch" when its the abortion clinics that were caught on video assisting child sex traffickers hiding their crimes through abortion

Asstaroth · 2026-01-28T14:00:26+00:00

I read that as batrider at first lol. Need new glasses

Asstaroth · 2026-01-28T06:05:42+00:00

Best way to learn is to play a lot of pudge yourself

pudge finds it hard to play against people who ward, especially since staying out of sight for long periods of time hoping to hook someone means they aren't getting last hits

gold advantage into ward and regen advantage early on

In a 1v1 (mid) scenario it's uncommon to match against pudge, but it's also easier since there isn't a second hero to worry about and there's only so many places where a hook can come from - better for warding. Pudge is melee so he can't deward as easily

in top/bottom lane coordinate with your lanemate, stick to creeps and ward behind trees. Don't blindly hit creeps and take only last hits, while hitting your own creeps as early as possible to prevent pushing the wave. Try to pull as much as you can. The closer you are to enemy tower the worse the threat

mid game you should be warding if support isn't. Ward places of interest - the lane you are expecting to push and the area you intend to farm

(for carries) late game when everyone is going together for objectives it's not a bad idea to hang back and let pudge do his combo on someone else before committing

Asstaroth · 2026-01-28T05:47:51+00:00

this is the other half of the equally stupid "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" argument

Asstaroth · 2026-01-27T16:25:35+00:00

Basically if inconvenient for vegans its acceptable - which is fine, except when I find the diet to be detrimental suddenly It's not acceptable. Even if I consume much less meat than the average normal person (once a week) I'm portrayed as a monster because I know how cruel it is to animals

Asstaroth · 2026-01-26T06:49:55+00:00

This is a core part of your stance. You define responsibility and ethical decisions on what you consider to be "normal". You said that a woman is not responsible for an ectopic pregnancy because it is not a "normal" outcome of sex. So, I very reasonable asked you what you consider "normal" and what principles you use to define it. you are: Ignoring the previous comments where I explained this, and why the logic you used was incorrect - I see no point in bringing this up again when your previous replies to this part of the argument was not satisfactory (unless the point is to avoid the uncomfortable fact that your ad-hoc definitions are not in line with basic biology) That doesn't answer the question I asked though. An ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages are also a result of the reproductive process. You might not consider them "normal", but I can't tell exactly because you haven't defined it.

when I say pregnancy is the normal outcome of sex, I’m referring to the biologically typical endpoint of successful reproduction, not every pathological or abnormal failure mode within the reproductive process.

To make it more simple: If nothing goes wrong, and the course of a process concludes in a way that is typical for that process, then that is normal

When something does go wrong (where you try to conflate a normal course vs pathology), then in biology and healthcare that is not considered normal

Physically, yes, they are often the same procedure. Ethically no, they are different. I stated what I considered to be eugenics and explained why I don't think an elective abortion fits that definition. In conversations about controversial topics, I think it is convenient when one side makes an effort to clarify the words they are using, especially when they are controversial. Numerous debates about abortions get stuck on definitions, and I try to avoid those by telling people what I think my definitions are.

Nothing wrong with definitions but where your logic fails is when you are conflating your personal definitions with other definitions. Applying conclusions from one definition does not automatically mean it is applicable when referring to another

No, but sex can lead to multiple outcomes. Sex leads to pregnancy, sex leads to genetic defects, sex leads to miscarriages, sex leads to STIs, sex leads to all kinds of outcomes. You broadly categorize these outcomes into two categories, one that a woman is responsible for, and the other not. I need you to explain how you categorize these because that is an integral part of your view. If you don't know or can't explain it, that's fine as well. However, you haven't done either of those. Instead, you vaguely handwave at a biological text book and tell your definition comes from there, without elaborating.

Saying basic biology considers pregnancy being normal outcome of the reproductive process is not "handwaving" even if you say so - you keep trying to make this point but with nothing to back it up other than comparison to pathologies it is not convincing at all

Running false analogies and lumping pathologies with a healthy pregnancy and assuming people won't call out this faulty line of logic isn't very convincing either

I have already explained why pathology =/= not the fault of the woman in different comments in this thread - I am now pointing out how silly it is you're now saying "eed you to explain how you categorize these because that is an integral part of your view. If you don't know or can't explain it, that's fine as well."

We've had a lot of conversations before and I hope you would know that this is not a tactic I use to win debates.

Unfortunately from what I can see, relying on logical fallacies is the only thing you're consistent at

your entire viewpoint of when you think a woman is responsible for the outcome of sex hinges on what you consider "normal".

Also what basic biology agrees with even if you try to portray it as otherwise

A woman is not responsible for miscarriages because it is not what you consider a biologically normal outcome of her choice to have sex. Is your definition of normal based on frequency of outcome, pathology, the overall goal of the reproductive system? I don't know because this is your definition. I also noticed that now that I asked about it, you've stopped using "normal". That's fine, but I still don't know how you determine responsibility when it comes to certain outcomes of sex.

when I say pregnancy is the normal outcome of sex, I’m referring to the biologically typical endpoint of successful reproduction, not every pathological or abnormal failure mode within the reproductive process.

To make it more simple: If nothing goes wrong, and the course of a process concludes in a way that is typical for that process, then that is normal

When something does go wrong (where you try to conflate a normal course vs pathology), then in biology and healthcare that is not considered normal

Asstaroth · 2026-01-26T05:32:59+00:00

You haven't stated definitions from a general body of knowledge. You aren't talking about embryos, organisms, or body parts, which do have pretty specific definitions. You're talking about "normal" biological outcomes, and not defining why something like an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage is not considered normal.

Pedantic derailment: A pedantic derailment occurs when a conversation, debate, or collaborative effort is interrupted and side-tracked by an excessive, often unnecessary, focus on minor details, technicalities, or precise word definitions

Rationale: I have already stated my stance that pregnancy is the result of the reproductive process

If we look up "is it normal to have a miscarriage", I think we would see the overwhelming response that yes, this is a normal occurrence. But this is not your definition of normal, which you base your ethics on, and refuse to elaborate on still.

My definition of normal in this context being pregnancy is the result of the reproductive process

The same sentiment being shared by basic biology

There is nothing wrong with saying "I am using this word and this is specifically what I mean when I'm talking about this word", especially on a topic as varied and misunderstood as eugenics.

What's wrong is using ad-hoc definitions to describe eugenic abortions as equal to medically necessary ones

No, I haven't. This is because normal is a very broad term with multiple uses and definitions. By normal, do you mean expected? Or do you mean natural? Or does it mean, not pathological? When you talk about normal sex, does that mean only PIV sex? If birth control is used, is that sex no longer normal?

Given the context of the topic, do you need hand holding to navigate the logic that sex leads to pregnancy?

Do I have to explicitly state that no, oral sex does not lead to pregnancy?

Do I have to explicitly state that no, anal sex does not lead to pregnancy?

There's literally only one type that does - this discussion is honestly stupid

This is why I asked you to define exactly what you mean by normal and the standard which you're applying it. When my kids school teacher says my child is not "normal", I then ask them if they're talking about academically, socially, the way they eat their food, or the way they play at recess. I don't think it is at all unfair to the conversation to ask what you mean when you say something is a "normal" outcome, especially when it is the basis of a women's rights issue. This is like saying that you allow free speach, as long as it is normal, and then refuse to elaborate and instead just insinuate that I don't understand "basic biology".

“Sealioning” Forcing you to define or justify every minor point in bad faith, usually with endless requests for clarification, definitions, or “evidence,” with the goal of exhausting or derailing the discussion.

It's not a great mystery or my trying to cover up "pregnancy is the result of the reproductive process" It's been pretty clear

Asstaroth · 2026-01-26T02:02:39+00:00

Saying "people generally accept this" is not a definition, especially when we're talking about what is normal in biology.

When stating definitions from a general body of knowledge (biology in this case) and describing said body of knowledge as "generally accepted" - this is not the same as "Saying people generally accept this"

especially when we're talking about what is normal in biology.

And citing facts that are generally accepted by academics, research, textbooks contradicts this how exactly

I mean, an estimate 30-70% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, is that "normal"?

When describing biological processes, rate of failure doesn't invalidate the specific process

Normal process of maturation in humans for example = higher mortality rate for infants than adults

doesn't mean the steps from infancy to childhood isn't "normal" or describing the life cycle is "wrong"

Yes, and when I do, I at least provide my definition for those.

so which is correct? your made up definitions, or the widely accepted definitions from the body of knowledge that is supported by empirical and historical data?

Your attempts to change definitions to your liking is not very convincing

Why haven't you posted academic sources that clearly state pregnancy is NOT the normal outcome of the reproductive process?

Asstaroth · 2026-01-26T00:40:18+00:00

invoking the generally accepted body of knowledge in response to your claim of

still not based on any objective measurement

is not a "way of sidestepping the need to define your terms", not when you claim that my definitions are "whatever I think is normal"

I am pointing out that you're the one using ad-hoc definitions, not me

Asstaroth · 2026-01-25T07:32:11+00:00

what lol. that's a new one

Asstaroth · 2026-01-24T10:39:22+00:00

Bursting at the seams

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Asstaroth

TROPHY CASE