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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @pragmatometer @RubinReport and
Your wife having a 50/50 chance of dying giving birth to a non-viable fetus isn't a medical emergency? It's possible to determine viability of a pregnancy as early as 10 weeks.I'm glad I don't have to make that choice with you. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/26/11/2957/657637 … https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3282258/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't understand why you're giving me links about embryonic/fetal viability to make a point about early detection of a 50/50 risk to the mother months down the road.
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.