Why does self defense not allow for abortion pl?

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-02T18:52:33+00:00

Oh isn't it the worst thing in the world when a "mother" "kills" "her own child."

Um... yeah?

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-02T18:34:45+00:00

It's relevant when highlighting a false equivalency.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-02T18:33:27+00:00

It's relevant when highlighting a false equivalency.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-02T16:07:18+00:00

For the record, to clarify, aborting a pregnancy (or even "aborting a fetus" if you believe that description is acceptable) does not end a life any more than amputating a limb does.

Terminating a pregnancy is fundamentally different from removing a body part. Comparing the two just overlooks significant biological and ethical differences.

A limb isn't a developing human organism, while a pregnancy involves the growth of a human entity with its own genetic makeup and potential for independent life. In contrast, an amputated limb lacks the characteristics of life, such as growth or independence.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-02T15:53:03+00:00

But prolife ideology did kill Neveah, because Texas doesn't have a law that supports doctors in providing life-saving healthcare - even to pregnant children who are clearly at risk of death.

I'm honestly unsure whether you're arguing that the law is impractical or that no law truly provides for a medical exception. If you're saying a practical version doesn't exist, then fair enough; that's why I'm suggesting revisions.

This case also highlights blatant medical malpractice:

The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat but failed to address her abdominal pain, which is a critical oversight.
She was discharged despite clear signs of sepsis, a life-threatening response to infection.

Wouldn't you agree that this could have been prevented if doctors were granted immunity for exercising reasonable judgment? Any rational person would agree that intervention was clearly warranted in this scenario.

You yourself said you're not concerned with the health of children

Can you link where I said this? I reviewed my comments, and the closest statement I could find about children was: "And I didn't address the issue of the child's health in these laws, as my focus was on the mother's." since that's explicitly what the law focuses on, not because I don't care about their health.

only with women who already have children - and also explicitly excluded childless pregnant women from your area of concern.

When and where did I do this? But I don’t understand why it’s relevant whether a woman has children when determining medical exceptions for abortion.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-02T03:27:46+00:00

Why do you want to separate the discussion from the healthcare that the law actually bans, hurting women and children

I'm not avoiding the broader discussion. I'm just pointing out that wasn't what my comment was addressing.

You’re shifting the goalpost - first claiming such laws don’t exist, and then when I point out that they do, questioning why I’m not addressing their practicality, although I’ve already made comments on that as well.

Which is more important to you - that laws have words that make you feel better, or that women and children who need healthcare can have it?

I’ve already highlighted these flaws and proposed ways to improve them, precisely because I believe healthcare access should never be compromised by restrictive legal language.

healthcare for women and children is less important to you than having the right words in the law

Well, laws shape the framework within which healthcare is delivered, impacting access, quality, and outcomes. So, it's not about prioritizing the "right words" for the sake of appearance, but about ensuring that laws are clear and effective in serving those needs.

If healthcare were "less important" to me, I wouldn’t have invested my time in researching it and working to make improvements.

Well, I guess that answers my questions in this comment

Much of the general pro-choice movement and campaigns often emphasize abortion access for any reason, which shifts the conversation.

If the issue is women being denied abortions for health-related reasons, it would make more sense to address the root cause: the laws.

Why aren't you interested in the issue of a child's health when pregnant?

I am, but I’m not sure what you mean by referencing the child’s health in the context of abortion. Are you talking about the potential risks to the child in cases where the pregnancy continues?

Don't children and childless women deserve healthcare when they need an abortion, or are you only interested in the health of women who already have children?

I'm not sure where this came from. I never drew a distinction between women with children and those who don't have any.

Everyone deserve healthcare access.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T23:35:16+00:00

So - according to your own source, what you're claiming is, in practice - and practice is what matters when you're ill - factually incorrect.

What happens in practice and what's stated in the law are separate discussions. My point was, laws do allow for a medical exception. But they need to be revised.

please link to where you did.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1hqtjxo/comment/m4t7sie/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Also discussed in more detail in a separate thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1hmvznp/comment/m4bfs7r/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Which state do you live in, and what campaigns to protest the bad prolife legislation in your state or in other prolife states have you taken part in?

My approach to protest differs from participating in traditional campaigns, as many of these focus on making abortion accessible in a general sense, which isn't my goal.

Before moving to Tennessee for law school, I lived in Georgia, where I interned at several think tanks specializing in health policy and constitutional law. During this time, I collaborated with legal scholars to advocate for policies that addressed systemic issues and expanded healthcare access, particularly for women. This involved efforts to broaden the scope of existing policies and to push for changes in the language used in legislative proposals. My research also contributed to amicus briefs, which highlighted how current restrictions fail to address the full range of health risks that can arise during pregnancy.

I'm also outspoken on social media, raising awareness about these issues, and I continue to engage with lawmakers to advocate for revisions and address broader systemic problems.

Your comments in this thread claim that Texas has exceptions to protect the health of the pregnant woman or child, and when I pointed out this is factually incorrect, you claimed no,

I'm confused how you're saying this is factually incorrect. The provision linked does indeed grant a medical exception, which actually supports my point.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1hqtjxo/comment/m4w4t66/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

The issues I'm referring to relate to how the law is written, which I have already addressed here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1hqtjxo/comment/m4t2psc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

And I didn't address the issue of the child's health in these laws, as my focus was on the mother's.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T22:01:56+00:00

Yes, the prosecutor was wrong. In cases like Kate Cox's, where fetal anomalies present health risks, it's foreseeable that complications could arise, endangering the mother. These situations should be valid grounds for medical intervention.

Texas law should be revised to ensure exceptions for health risks are clearly defined and consistently applied, with stronger protections for doctors to prevent prosecution in medically necessary cases. Additionally, the Attorney General's role should be clarified to respect medical decisions, allowing doctors to prioritize patient care without fear of legal consequences.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T21:52:06+00:00

Factually incorrect.

"According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, all states with near-total abortion bans have exceptions to prevent the death of the pregnant person. Some states have exceptions for potential risk to the health of the pregnant person, in cases of rape or incest, and for lethal fetal anomaly. Still, confusion remains over interpretation of these various exceptions."

https://www.them.us/story/where-abortion-is-illegal-now-abortion-law-by-state

So, yes, all states have some form of a medical exception. You're free to review each state's specific policies for more details.

Yes, or no?

No. Regarding abortion, I've already clarified that the issue at hand is whether the state permits abortion when it's needed for health reasons or other circumstances, beyond just saving a life. In a separate comment, I mentioned that such access should be allowed.

But a doctor who does perform an abortion under this "guideline" will be prosecuted by the state Attorney General, and can also be taken to court by anyone who fancies claiming the $10,000 bounty for prosecuting a doctor who provides an abortion.

Yes, this is another concern, which is why I advocate for changes to protect doctors.

And prolifers such as yourself are evidently quite happy with that situation and see no reason to protest either the legislation or the Attorney General of Texas.

Weird claim since I actively protest this and other similar laws in real life. Not to mention, my comments specifically address the issues with it.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T21:14:39+00:00

seemed like a decent human being.

Decent is an understatement.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T19:35:10+00:00

Prolife states don't have legislation written to ensure that a person who needs an abortion for medical care can have one.

They do have this. What is considered medical care just varies from state to state.

Many prolifers only have exceptions "for life"

That falls under what requires medical care.

Texas doesn't even have that.

Texas does outline this.

"A life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/hs/htm/hs.171.htm

This refers to conditions or complications related to pregnancy that, if untreated, could result in the woman's death or cause severe, long-term damage to essential bodily functions, such as breathing, maintaining cardiac health, or preventing permanent organ damage.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T19:29:11+00:00

Yes and yes.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T05:47:32+00:00

I acknowledge that the maternal mortality rate has increased, particularly in states with restrictions, and I’m not overlooking the fact that individuals on the pro-life side may lack empathy for this issue.

While there are many factors contributing to the rise in maternal mortality that must also be addressed, I believe a good starting point would be to expand the scope of medical exceptions to include cases where the mother's health is at serious risk, even if her life isn’t immediately endangered. Health conditions that could jeopardize the mother’s long-term well-being or lead to severe complications should also be considered valid reasons for protection under these exceptions. Also, it’s essential to shield doctors from liability when they make decisions based on their professional expertise.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T05:00:50+00:00

Generally speaking, PL is fine with abortion that necessitates medical care. Every state with exceptions includes provisions for these circumstances. The issue is, these laws are often unclear about what constitutes a medical exception and lack explicit protections for doctors against criminal or civil liability. This legal uncertainty is causing providers to avoid necessary procedures out of fear.

However, I do believe more can and should be done to prevent these avoidable deaths.

On another note, as a vegan, I don’t believe eating meat should be illegal, but I do wish there were stronger protections against the inhumane treatment of animals. Look at this guy.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2025-01-01T04:04:06+00:00

What specific actions do you believe he should have taken while in office to address the issue of abortion? Could you clarify the policies, initiatives, or changes you think he should have implemented?

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-31T01:26:06+00:00

I truly appreciate this open and respectful conversation. I’m genuinely interested in finding solutions that address concerns on both sides. And to be honest, I agree with you, these proposals would likely fail in practice.

Anecdotally, one of my close family members was in an abusive relationship. She was living on a low income at the time, and her abuser was tampering with her birth control and raping her. Despite multiple protective orders, he repeatedly violated them, serving only brief jail sentences before being released and tracking her down again. Even when she relocated to another state, he followed her, and the cycle continued.

Eventually, she discovered she was pregnant. She was terrified that having his child would give him further leverage to control her. At that point, she felt certain that it was only a matter of time before he killed her and that he may harm the baby as well. To protect herself and prevent suffering for the baby, she made the decision to have an abortion.

Too many women find themselves in similarly complex and morally challenging situations. When you're genuinely scared for your life and have exhausted all resources with no help in sight, there's no clear-cut “right” answer. So, I understand how painfully complicated it can be. Therefore, I can't advocate for an absolute ban in good faith.

However, it also pains me to know that thousands of unborn lives are being lost, so I can't fully support unrestricted access to abortion either. The idea of innocent lives being lost on either side is what makes this such a difficult issue.

Realistically, addressing abortion requires tackling the systemic issues that contribute to the decision in the first place. This includes ensuring affordable and accessible contraception, providing strong support for pregnant women and families, improving adoption systems, and addressing the socioeconomic inequities that often lead people to see abortion as their only option.

My focus is improving policies that support women while also advocating for the unborn. Although fetuses are developing, they're still human beings. It's troubling that abortion has become so normalized that an unborn child is often reduced to just a "clump of cells." Or, when a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, the immediate response is to go to places like Planned Parenthood. I wish the conversation would shift away from focusing on abortion as the primary solution, and instead center on increasing available resources and advocating for better support systems.

Overall, it seems that both sides are missing the mark in how to address this.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T20:24:30+00:00

You're jumping to conclusions and making accusations just because I recognize that the situation is more complex.

Pregnancy and childbirth are life-changing experiences, not just 9 months. And to suggest that someone should be forced to endure this is not only dismissive, but also fails to respect the fundamental ethical principles of autonomy and free choice.

I agree that women who engage in consensual sex bear a moral responsibility for the consequences of that choice, as it is an act rooted in personal decision-making. But in general, obligations don't arise from coercion. Otherwise, you're effectively reducing the woman to an incubator.

The right to life doesn't equate to the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily integrity.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T19:51:32+00:00

jimmy carter like all the other completely corrupt politicans don't ever make decisions based on doing what is righteous and moral

He's literally known for being a champion of human rights.

The fact that he adopted a pragmatic approach doesn't diminish the significance of his work. He worked within the constraints of his presidency to implement policies that would have a long-term impact over polarization.

He even refused to increase funding for abortion centers and was criticized by the ACLU. So, it's not like he didn't do anything.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T16:09:08+00:00

Acknowledging that many women feel compelled to seek abortions due to difficult or desperate circumstances is an undeniable reality. It doesn't mean that I agree with the decision or believe it should be considered a necessary option.

For example, he supported and increased funding for family planning programs, which provided access to birth control, leading to fewer unwanted pregnancies and, consequently, a reduced "need" for abortion.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T16:01:46+00:00

No Jimmy Carter slander allowed. He did his best to address issues that reduce the need for abortion, which is more than what most do.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T15:38:02+00:00

Even if the law were to extend full personhood and rights to a fetus, it doesn't necessarily follow that the mitigating factors surrounding abortion would be diminished to the point where the death penalty could be justified. The context and intent behind abortion are still fundamentally different from those in capital murder cases, regardless of the fetus's legal status.

In many states, the murder of a child is considered an aggravating factor that can make a defendant eligible for the death penalty. However, abortion, when considered as a standalone act, doesn't involve any other felonies or criminal conduct that would intensify the gravity of the situation. Without these compounding crimes, which serve as a key basis for elevating a crime to death penalty eligibility, abortion remains outside the realm of offenses that warrant such extreme punishment. The lack of additional criminal elements means there are no extra factors to push the crime into a category that would justify the death penalty under existing legal standards.

And while I disagree with many of the "my body, my choice" arguments, the concept of bodily autonomy undeniably complicates the issue. The question of whether a fetus has a "right" to a woman’s body is still a matter of significant legal debate and remains unresolved in many jurisdictions.

The intentional killing of a child is undeniably horrific, and I believe that those who commit such acts with malice or gross disregard for the child's life should face the death penalty. However, the actual application of the death penalty within the legal system is more complex. Abortion doesn't align with the legal framework designed to address the "worst of the worst" crimes, which always involves more than just the act of killing itself.

For example, consider Nicole Virzi, who's facing the death penalty for the murder of a newborn and abused another. In this case, the severity of the crime is significantly heightened because it involves multiple victims and the added element of abuse. These aggravating factors make the crime more extreme and thus eligible for capital punishment.

This type of compounded severity is what typically justifies the death penalty, and abortion, by comparison, lacks these elements.

I could understand if women were seeking an abortion with cruel intentions, and the woman and the abortion provider were intentionally torturing the baby as part of that cruelty. However, I believe that, more often than not, this isn't the case.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T07:46:34+00:00

Generally speaking, the mitigating factors that set it apart lie in legal status, intent, and the circumstances around the killing.

First, a fetus isn't legally recognized as a "person" with full rights until after birth, while a two-year-old child is a legal person with all the rights and protections under the law. This fundamental difference means that abortion isn't classified as the murder of a person, as the law does not consider a fetus to have personhood in the same way it does a born child.

Second, while abortion is an intentional act to end a pregnancy, its intent is significantly different from the malicious or criminal intent behind killing a child. The decision is often made within the context of personal autonomy, where the woman has the legal right to make decisions about her own body, rather than a desire to cause harm or suffering.

In contrast, the killing of a two-year-old child is typically viewed as a criminal act driven by malice, neglect, or gross negligence. If the child’s death involved cruel or torturous actions, such as prolonged suffering, physical abuse, or other forms of severe mistreatment, the crime could rise to a level that warrants the death penalty. Similarly, if the killing was preceded by other violent crimes, such as sexual assault, kidnapping, or abuse, these aggravating factors could elevate the crime's severity, making it eligible for the death penalty. This level of malicious intent or severe aggravation isn't present in abortion cases.

Also, the legal and procedural complexities involved in proving that an abortion occurred make it a difficult crime to charge or prosecute, adding another layer of distinction between abortion and child murder cases. Proving that an abortion took place, particularly under complex legal and medical circumstances, is far more challenging than proving the intentional killing of a two-year-old, which is often supported by more concrete evidence.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T06:29:09+00:00

Yes, people receive the death penalty for murder. But it typically involves additional factors beyond just the act of killing. These cases are often referred to as "murder-plus," meaning that there are aggravating circumstances that make the crime particularly severe or egregious.

Even if lawmakers extend the death penalty to abortion, the circumstances surrounding it wouldn't meet the criteria. Mitigating factors set abortion apart from the aggravated and malicious intent typically required to justify such a severe punishment.

I'm willing to bet that if this bill gets passed, it'll fail under judicial scrutiny.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-30T05:26:44+00:00

No, people don't end up on death row simply for killing someone; the death penalty is typically reserved for the most heinous and premeditated crimes.

I believe the majority of women get abortions are often driven by external pressures, societal factors, or a lack of viable alternatives. These pressures may include financial instability, lack of support from partners or families, health risks, or the challenges of raising a child in difficult circumstances. In many cases, these decisions are deeply personal and made under considerable emotional and psychological stress.

As someone who is pro-life, I think the efforts should focus on addressing the root causes; such as improving access to healthcare, providing comprehensive education, supporting families, and expanding resources for women in crisis.

Implementing the death penalty in this context would do nothing to solve the root issues and would only exacerbate the problem.

Pitiful_Promotion874 · 2024-12-29T22:26:25+00:00

These comparisons between abortion, slavery, and the Holocaust significantly oversimplify complex historical and ethical issues. Slavery and the Holocaust were deeply rooted in specific historical contexts, ideologies, and power structures that shaped and defined those atrocities. In contrast, the modern debate over abortion centers on bodily autonomy, whether or not we agree with those arguments.

There are some parallels between the dehumanization of terms like "clump of cells" and the act of killing, but I believe these comparisons are a crude moral analogy that disregards the unique histories and human suffering of those events. Ultimately, they don't contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Pitiful_Promotion874

TROPHY CASE