West Philly abortion doc charged with eight counts of murder

[MikeH]

The fact that they might be more careful to avoid pregnancy if abortion were banned doesn't mean they take abortion casually. People who get unwanted pregnancies are often irresponsible teenagers, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED. They aren't usually the rational, working-age adults with paying jobs that MikeH talked about.

1. I never talked about rational working-age adults with paying jobs did I?
2. Teenagers tend to be irresponsible only if they are poorly educated about sex.
3. Being an irrational teenager doesn't mean you find abortion or the concept of abortion casual. It's always traumatic, maybe unless you are a sociopath.

I know closely people who've got pregnant, had abortions, had babies adopted, blah blah blah at various ages. I'm sure most sexually active straight adult males have been involved in a pregnancy scare at some stage, many as irresponsible teenagers.

[Asher]

Canada allows for abortions up until the 9th month (33rd week was the last stat I saw) Albie. His point was if you read his posts last night is that restrictions on when abortions take place will inevitably lead women into the hands of quacks like the doctor described in the OP.

Canada simply has no time limit on abortions. No arbitrary line. It's up to the mother.

The conservatives have tried to make this an issue before, but on account of Canada not having a quasi-theocratic government, it's a non-starter in Canada.

[DaShi]

Given the fact that is the law nowhere in the US or anywhere under its dominion and no one in this thread has said that or even implied that, I would have to say that you need to learn to read.

What an odd response to a yes/no question.

[DinoDoc]

@ Asher: That's what I said. I just couldn't find any instance of it happening in the 34-36th week.

[Hauldren Collider]

You are saying that if abortions weren't legal and instead we got the state to raise all the potentially aborted children, many people would start using condoms instead so the number wouldn't be as high. Do you not understand how stupid that is?

Either way the woman doesn't need to care for the baby.

WHERE did I say the state would raise all the kids? I suggested improving orphanages for the handful that can't find adoptive parents, and improving the adoption system to make it easier to adopt and not take years, as well as providing incentives for domestic adoption over international adoption. That's VERY DIFFERENT from what you are claiming I said, so stop shoving words in my mouth.

Other than that, yeah, I do think more people would use condoms or avoid sex or use the pill or whatnot. Yes, that's what I think, and you're free to disagree with it.

[Asher]

1. Sometimes legislation has to have some level of arbitration. That's a fact of democracy.

There's a compelling argument if I've ever seen one.

2. It's NOT arbitrary. Perception of pain/sensory capability is non-arbitrary, certainly less arbitrary than whether the baby is inside a flap of skin or outside.

It most certainly is arbitrary...do we know for certain when "perception of pain/sensory capability is"? Last I heard it wasn't exact yet. Further still, why is THAT the gold standard? That's undeniably arbitrary.

[Asher]

WHERE did I say the state would raise all the kids? I suggested improving orphanages for the handful that can't find adoptive parents

The HANDFUL that can't find adoptive parents? THE HANDFUL?

You're talking about injecting over 800,000 kids a year into a system THAT ALREADY HAS A MASSIVE SHORTAGE OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS.

So yes, you are saying the state would raise all the kids. You just don't realize it.

[Hauldren Collider]

1. I never talked about rational working-age adults with paying jobs did I?.

You mentioned some woman who was five months pregnant and didn't know it. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post, I didn't mean to claim you said something you didn't.

[Felch]

And what's the difference?

I think you seem to be missing Asher's point. He's asking what is the difference between using a morning after pill and having a 24 week abortion? You're potentially killing a viable baby either way. And what's the difference between either of those options and preventing fertilisation in the first place by using a condom?

And if you can answer all those, why is your view any more valid than anyone elses and why should the law be based around what you think, rather than what is the real cost and benefit to women, babies and society?

I'd argue that since brain death is the commonly accepted legal definition of death, then the start of brain activity should be the legal beginning of life. Religious communities can have different standards, but it would be ridiculous and inconsistent not to treat a human being as a legally alive person so long as the brain is active.

At that point it answers your question about cost and benefit as well. We never kill people solely for economic gain. Nor do we abort fetuses belonging to poor mothers just to keep a lid on crime. Your brutal and abhorrent notion of government's responsibility is not what we have here in the US.

[MikeH]

You mentioned some woman who was five months pregnant and didn't know it. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post, I didn't mean to claim you said something you didn't.

She was an 18 year old starting her first year of university at the time. The job was part time whilst she was there.

[DaShi]

Canada allows for abortions up until the 9th month (33rd week was the last stat I saw) Albie. His point was if you read his posts last night is that restrictions on when abortions take place will inevitably lead women into the hands of quacks like the doctor described in the OP.

DD, maybe this will help you: http://www.hookedonphonics.com/

[Asher]

I'd argue that since brain death is the commonly accepted legal definition of death, then the start of brain activity should be the legal beginning of life. Religious communities can have different standards, but it would be ridiculous and inconsistent not to treat a human being as a legally alive person so long as the brain is active.

When someone is brain dead, you don't print a death certificate...

At that point it answers your question about cost and benefit as well. We never kill people solely for economic gain. Nor do we abort fetuses belonging to poor mothers just to keep a lid on crime. Your brutal and abhorrent notion of government's responsibility is not what we have here in the US.

9/10

[MikeH]

I'd argue that since brain death is the commonly accepted legal definition of death, then the start of brain activity should be the legal beginning of life. Religious communities can have different standards, but it would be ridiculous and inconsistent not to treat a human being as a legally alive person so long as the brain is active.

At that point it answers your question about cost and benefit as well. We never kill people solely for economic gain. Nor do we abort fetuses belonging to poor mothers just to keep a lid on crime. Your brutal and abhorrent notion of government's responsibility is not what we have here in the US.

First para: Your view, a reasonable argument. Although there are many cases where the brain is active but a person is not conscious in any meaningful way eg. comas.

Second para: Our rules, which I broadly support, are pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME as the laws in the US. In what way is what I think any different from the majority of Americans or from your laws?

[Al B. Sure!]

Second para: Our rules, which I broadly support, are pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME as the laws in the US. In what way is what I think any different from the majority of Americans or from your laws?

There is just no way that the majority of Americans are pro-choice or favor the current system.

[MikeH]

They must do, you can't be that backwards as a nation.