1) Show me a specific study. Most have been misquoted and actually suggest the abortion rate is more directly tied to access to contraceptives. 2) Zygotes are living organisms. That's not even debated. 3) Why apply that here but not, say, child abuse, or other contested behavior?
-
-
Replying to @pragmatometer @RubinReport and
1) You mean this study you're misquoting that says legal abortion AND contraceptive use is best?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/ … 2) organism, maybe, but not a person. 3) Not the same cases. By protecting a child from abuse you aren't preventing women making decisions about their health.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YesThisIsSam @RubinReport and
You're mischaracterizing both what I said AND the study. I said reduced abortion rates are *more* tied to contraceptives, not exclusively. And that study is with respect to *unsafe* abortion, not abortion overall.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pragmatometer @RubinReport and
Let's cut to the chase. Answer this: your wife is 19 weeks into pregnancy. Dr. finds markers for a disease that guarantees, even if carried to term and w/ no miscarriage, the fetus will die almost immediately. Your wife has a 50/50 chance of dying giving birth. What do you do?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YesThisIsSam @RubinReport and
You follow a guiding principle of preserving human life. If this is one of the exceedingly rare situations where there is a medical indication that a choice between the mother and the child must be made, then there's certainly room for such a tough choice to be made.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pragmatometer @YesThisIsSam and
While these scenarios are rare, there is a fundamental difference between accepting risk to one party because it's medically necessitated to save the life of another. Those are hard decisions, and they shouldn't be trivialized as a defense for unrelated, elective abortions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pragmatometer @RubinReport and
If you agree that this is the case, then even a compassionate, conservative stance on abortion begins with keeping it accessable, safe, and legal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YesThisIsSam @RubinReport and
If you're referring to elective abortion, then no-that doesn't follow. Not even remotely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pragmatometer @RubinReport and
I'm referring to the question in the specific scenario I proposed that you never answered. That you side-stepped answering it directly speaks volumes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YesThisIsSam @RubinReport and
No offense, but that's not a very useful question. I've never heard of a condition that can be detected at 19 weeks that will pose a 50/50 risk to the mother some *21 weeks* later. But to give an answer, no. I would not support aborting a baby in the absence of medical urgency.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If you're asking me to condone the "safe and legal" ability to make life saving decisions, up to and including procedures that may end the life of the baby, then yes, I support that. But that doesn't describe elective abortion, nor "50/50 21 weeks later" scenarios.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.