Pro-life candidates are mean people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Salmonslayer said:
It won’t stop the very determined, same as murder.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming most people consider abortion on par with murdering a born person, and therefore have the same moral inhibitions toward it. History proves otherwise.
 
Salmonslayer said:
Gays were once societally detested, now they’re not.
Click to expand...
They still are detested by people who abhor homosexuality for religious/political reasons.
Salmonslayer said:
With the proper control of media, public opinion, like any opinion, can be changed.
Click to expand...
You’re not going to change public opinion by throwing women in jail and taking away their children.
 
Last edited:
TheAmazingGrace said:
Good luck. All that’s going to do is creating a booming under-the-table abortion industry that everyone’s going to deny being part of.
Click to expand...
Abortion would be rarer due to the support networks I mentioned earlier. As for illegal abortions, police investigations can certainly root them out. Moreover if an illegal abortionist was arrested I bet he’d be willing to reveal the names of all his patients as a plea bargain.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
How? By launching an investigation every time a woman miscarries?
Click to expand...
No. Other laws like Presumption of Innocence and Evidence-based trials would be at play too. Sometimes there would be reasonable doubt, other times there’d be sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

An example could be if a legitimate doctor is treating a woman for a miscarriage and discovers a large amount of a miscarriage-inducing chemical in her system. Or if an abortion doctor is arrested a list of all his patients was found during the arrest. Or if someone witnessed it.
TheAmazingGrace said:
Based on…?
Click to expand...
Plea Bargaining is a common practice in the justice system. It’s not unknown for someone to be caught for a crime and to agree to testify against other criminals in exchange for lesser sentences.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
An example could be if a legitimate doctor is treating a woman for a miscarriage and discovers a large amount of a miscarriage-inducing chemical in her system.
Click to expand...
So you’d require doctors to violate HIPPA? Also, how would they know if she had any odd chemicals in her system? I’ve never had a miscarriage, but I’m pretty sure that involuntary chemical tests aren’t a thing.
 
Last edited:
HIPPA doesn’t apply to law enforcement investigations. As an example, they have to automatically report gunshot wounds to the police, regardless of whether or not the patient consents.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
HIPPA doesn’t apply to law enforcement investigations.
Click to expand...
In order for an investigation to commence, you’d have to require doctors to violate HIPPA. Otherwise, what are you basing the investigation on?
 
Not necessarily. I edited my quote to include a contemporary example: doctors automatically have to report gunshot wounds to the police, regardless of whether or not the patient consents.
 
BornInMarch said:
Not necessarily. I edited my quote to include a contemporary example: doctors automatically have to report gunshot wounds to the police, regardless of whether or not the patient consents.
Click to expand...
Doctors are required to report gunshot wounds for the protection of the general public. There are some medical professionals who are against this practice, since it can deter gunshot victims from seeking treatment.

At any rate, that doesn’t answer the question of how doctors would test for and prove the presence of abortifacients in women who have miscarriages.
 
Last edited:
Salmonslayer probably thinks that making it underground will make abortion more inaccessible and discourage others from making the decision.
 
Start said:
Salmonslayer probably thinks that making it underground will make abortion more inaccessible and discourage others from making the decision.
Click to expand...
Except that, historically, it has not.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
Doctors are required to report gunshot wounds for the protection of the general public. There are some who are against this practice, since it can deter gunshot victims from seeking treatment.

At any rate, that doesn’t answer the question of how doctors would test for and prove the presence of abortifacients in women who have miscarriages.
Click to expand...
A lot of doctors still support the requirment to support gunshot wounds, and sometimes it ends in the patient being implicated in a crime (such as if he was shot in self-defense while carrying out a robbery or a home invasion).

As for the test, I meant it more as an example of evidence being accidentally unearthed.
 
That’s because historically forensic investigation methods were more primitive, and only the doctors were prosecuted.

And it did work to reduce abortions. After Roe v. Wade the rate of abortions greatly increased.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top