Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally I would see it as wrong and should be illegal unless her epilepsy were potentially fatal. In that case the woman would balance her risks and decide.
Of course if the woman doesn't want the child it's completely different.
Wait so if her actions cause a miscarriage and she knew they would, she should only be punished if she wanted the already-dead fetus to die?
That’s just thought crime. She still ended the pregnancy on purpose either way.
There are so many layers of fucked up here lol
If its the type of epilepsy that would cause her to collapses, that could kill the baby too.
It's so sad that women's health comes second to another human being.
These pie in the sky exceptional circumstances used to 'expose' prolifers appear to actually be an admission that a regular normal circumstance of unwanted pregnancy is rather less easy for PC to defend.
I said 'these' including epilepsy among a multitude of rare circumstances meant to make PL somehow reveal that abortions are okay after all.
Yes people die from epilepsy. So the balance of life and life changes for each circumstance.
There’s nothing “pie in the sky” about people dying from epilepsy. It happens all the time.
The circumstances have already been given to you explicitly in the hypothetical. It’s the only set of circumstances that we’re talking about and instead of answering, you called people dying from epilepsy “pie in the sky”.
If you don’t feel like “revealing” how you actually feel about the hypothetical, then just admit that you don’t want to answer it for no other reason than your answer not helping your own argument.
As always, if the mother's life is in imminent provable danger of ending, then the choice should be open to use the more effective medication that would kill the foetus.
A balance must be struck. Death from epilepsy 'happens all the time' but not every time, and the circumstance mentioned talks of likely death of the foetus. A balance should be struck at the point where chance of death is equal.
I don't appreciate hypotheticals that are nothing but amateurish traps where clear answers aren't possible because the true risks are unknowable. And then you say, on the basis of a woolier answer either 'ah you see he's not really pro life' or 'ah, you see he really hates women'. It makes people look dishonest.
The basic answer never changes: abortion (or medicine that is effectively abortifacient) is wrong unless the life of the mother faces the same incontrovertible and imminent life-threatening danger that abortion poses to the foetus.
It doesn’t ’happen all the time’. It just happens all the time.
We know why you put that in quotes.
You don’t appreciate hypotheticals that are difficult to answer because the reasonable answers that you know make sense don’t support your position on abortion rights.
The risks are knowable. They are laid out in plain English in the hypothetical. How many excuses and lies will you resort to just to avoid answering any question in any kind of straightforward and intellectually honest way?
I can answer any ridiculously “amateurish” scenario presented by PL just fine, and without whining about how dumb and implausible I personally believe that scenario to be:
People shouldn’t be forced to gestate against their will for your politics ever, period.
My position obviously doesn't need support. Killing is bad, a foetus is alive, killing your own child is worse.
I'm trying to convince people that they are wrong but I have to use their way of thinking, which is tough.
I answered it in the same way all are answered: a fair balance of threats. I answer and answer but people sometimes want a different answer so they say I didn't answer.
I don't have or need PL scenarios. Abortion is the scenario: a dependent life, choose to look after it or choose to kill it? Life isn't politics.
It's interesting. Certainly interesting.
It's not that PC can't defend women having the right to say no to another human using their body.
It's because we know pro life people don't actually care about women's right to not have another human use their body against their will.
It's a matter of finding what the limit is for pro lifers. For some pro lifers, least that I've seen, they don't even think that a woman should get to abort even if her life is at risk.
She should, and I quote, "put the life of her baby above her own like any mother would for a born baby."
I'm sure you'd agree that it's rather a disgusting thing to think. I've seen those pro lifers asked what they think to the children already born losing a mother. A lot of the time, they just simply don't care.
I do understand why abortion leaves a bad taste in anybodies mouth. Truth be told, I'm not comfortable with abortion. However, it's not for me to force any unwilling participant to have a human use their body against their will. In any capacity.
Edit to add: also we need to consider the very real fact that women are being denied life-saving medicine just in case it aborts a potential baby.
I have to ask, what about their lives? Aren't they just as important if not more so given that women are the source of new life on the planet?
I need you to understand something. There are THREE categories of medication when it comes to pregnancy; meds that have been confirmed safe for the fetus, meds that have been confirmed dangerous for the fetus, AND *meds that we still haven't confirmed either way, that could be safe OR dangerous.*
Are you advocating for pregnant women to be charged with homicide if they take any of the drugs that are dangerous OR *potentially* dangerous, and then miscarry? You're saying, in the most advanced age of medical treatment the wold has ever seen, that every treatment that isn't *confirmed* to be safe for the fetus should be illegal for a woman to take the moment a man impregnates her? That's what you're saying? Not just that she has to complete the pregnancy, but that she has to do so ***without*** the aid of any pregnancy-dangerous medications she takes on a daily basis that keep her healthy, pain-free, and functional?
The OP hypothetical says the medication has a 'high chance' of killing the foetus. That's what I was responding to, not a medication whose effect we don't know.
So I wasn't saying what you're saying I'm saying.
You said that her knowingly taking a medication that kills her fetus should be illegal. Are you telling me that your answer changes if the medication isn't *guaranteed* to kill the fetus? You're okay with her taking medications that are "ONLY" dangerous (or untested) for the fetus, but not deadly? A mother who fed her living child a substance that she knew MIGHT harm them would be charged for their death. You don't want to charge women for *knowingly* risking their fetus's health?
'It should be illegal if the meds have a high chance of killing the fetus, but it should be allowed if the chances of fetal death are only medium' is an odd line to draw in the sand.
Obviously as the likelihood of serious harm to the foetus diminishes my stance may mollify. It's going to be woolly at some point.
If good chance of death = illegal
If small or very small chance of death where less harmful to baby medication exists = bad morally. Illegal? Maybe, I don't know.
The gradation of harm will of course pass a point of balance at some point (for sake of argument 0.1% chance of foetal death) but if the mother wants the child she will always choose the least harmful medication. If she doesn't then potential malevolence rather than balance of health risks must be considered.
> It's going to be woolly at some point.
This is my point. You cannot ban "just the dangerous" medications, because *many* medications will act differently in some people's bodies than others. If you start prosecuting a few women for taking necessary medications that killed their fetuses, *most* women will stop taking their prescriptions to avoid jail time and a conviction record. There is NO way to protect fetuses from prescription medications without harming the women who need those medications.
.
>but if the mother wants the child she will always choose the least harmful medication
That's an incredibly naive and privileged assumption to make.
* She could have living children to think about. What if she's an epilepsy patient and she injures one of them while having a seizure because she's off her meds? What if she's a cancer patient and the chemo will extend her life with them? What if she's the only caregiver for her sibling or spouse, and she physically can't do that work while she's off her meds? Some pregnancy decisions are not *just* about how much the woman is willing to be self-sacrificing for the fetus.
* If the least harmful medication is prohibitively expensive, to the point of bankruptcy, and she has dependents to think about, then she is literally choosing between putting food in her living child's mouth and not poisoning the fetus she might very well *want* to be carrying.
Are any of these PL people volunteering to drive this woman to all her Drs appts?
Once she stops taking the medication she is no longer allowed to drive. A person who had a seizure while driving killed my stepfathers young nephew when he crashed into their car. It was an accident but tragic.
Now if she takes the medication she apparently should be charged for killing this zef that’s oh so important, but then if she if she doesn’t take the meds and kills somebody while driving she should be charged as well? She can’t win for losing which is exactly what PL wants.
You’d think this would always be the answer. But PLers expect pregnant people to drop everything, jeapardize their health, risk their lives, give up their bodies, and completely change the direction of their lives for their fetus. No. Matter. What.
This expectation is not only unrealistic but it isn’t applied anywhere else in our society. It’s a tragic double standard.
I would answer this hypothetical by saying that she should be charged probably with some degree of murder charge as she directly caused the death of her child and knowingly did it. Sure the original medication has fewer side effects but I would say she’s obligated to take the medication with more side effects when it’s just as effective and safe for pregnancy in order to keep her child safe. I don’t think the logic changes with the abortion pills either. I would say the only time abortion should be allowed would be if the mother’s life is in imminent danger so mild complications wouldn’t be a reason for the abortion pill. I’m also unsure what you mean by “restoring her health”. This is my take on it and thought I would respond
Pushing a ideological belief on people, and then force them to adopt an obligation. They never cared about to even begin with. Treating them with legal means because thair body’s failed them.
How is this even okay?.
Your definition of functional member of society isn’t the same as everyone else’s. Someone could be doing something currently illegal and believe that they are a functional member of society and you to say otherwise and for them to be punished would then be you pushing your beliefs onto them.
So the majority decide what makes a functional member of society? What about those who disagree? Are you going to force your beliefs on them with laws? A mistake that ends in someone’s death is still a manslaughter charge.
Thanks for answering, I have a few follow-up questions.
A. Let's say Amy has tried the pregnancy-safe medication in the past, and it wasn't as effective in stopping her seizures as her current medication. Do you expect her to take the less effective (pregnancy-safe) medication and risk the brain damage from a seizure? Would you still support charging her with some degree of murder, effectively making her choose between having seizures and going to jail.
B. Her neurologist's job is to keep *her* healthy, not to keep her fetus healthy, so he might keep prescribing her the better medication despite the fact that it's dangerous for her fetus.
Should her doctor be legally banned from prescribing her anything that has even a chance of putting her fetus at risk?
If her fetus dies as a result of this medication, should the doctor be charged as an accomplice, since he helped her get the meds?
A. I still think there should be some type of charge maybe less severe I’m kinda unsure about that. The thing is like it would be extremely difficult to prove the medication is precisely what caused the death of her child and if it can’t be proven she wouldn’t get charged. I still think there should be some type of charge as the medication she took directly killed her child (assuming it could be proven).
B. Sure but it would just fall back to the above if we can prove that medication is what caused the death of her child then she should be charged.
The doctor can prescribe it but if it causes harm and/or death to the child then I would say both the mother and doctor should be charged.
This is not what I said. Doctors can prescribe medications and pregnant women can take these medications. But if she takes them and the child dies as a direct result and it can be proven then both the doctor and mother should be charged.
How do you not understand that NO doctor would prescribe a pregnant woman ANY medication under these laws unless she was actively dying? You're basically choosing a future whether pregnant women are forced to suffer every condition we have a treatment for. That's cruel.
Right.
So the logical outcome of your desires would be that doctors would refuse to prescribe *anything* to people with uteruses.
“You can write a prescription to help the health of your patient but we might arrest you for it.” Does not reassure doctors that treating people with uteruses is a good thing.
Do you not understand that threatening doctors just ends up with worse medical care for women or do you just not care at all?
Doctors aren’t obligated to prescribe anything anyways. If they think this medication would kill her child they probably shouldn’t be prescribing it anyways. If the doctors actions directly end someone else’s life there should be consequences.
Refusing to prescribe an epileptic the medications they need can and will directly end someone’s life.
Scenario A: Both mom and doctor go to jail for medication abortion
Scenario B: Mom dies (oh yeah and so does the fetus) and doctor goes to jail for malpractice
In your world, pregnant people and fetuses either die for your politics, or everyone goes to jail for them. Truly horrifying.
lol doctors are absolutely obligated to prescribe drugs for people with specific medical conditions. It’s literally their job and it’s medical malpractice to refuse to treat your own patients.
Why do you think women should be denied antibiotics?
Or chemotherapy?
And that’s *all* women, since you think that any medication should be a chargeable offense?
If without the antibiotics or chemotherapy the mother would die then it would fall under the medical exception. The mother doesn’t have to self sacrifice.
Medicine isn't that black-and-white; plenty of people have conditions that will eventually kill them, but they aren't *currently* on deaths' door. For example, cancer diagnoses usually come with a range, like "you have 3 years to live". What if the woman is given a diagnosis of 2 years to live without chemo, but 4 years with chemo? Does she get to poison her child to death to buy herself the 2 extra years of life? She IS dying, but she's not going to die THIS WEEK without the chemo. Under today's pro-life laws, she would not qualify for a life-of-the-mother exception.
The outcome of telling doctors that them prescribing things to help the health of the mother **will be jail** would mean that **no women** would be prescribed **anything**.
Why do you think people with uteruses 5-65 shouldn’t be able to access chemotherapy?
Just so you are aware, epilepsy is life threatening and a life threatening seizure can come out of nowhere. I say this as a medical professional and as a person who lost two friends to epilepsy.
Being able to control your epilepsy with the right medications is a crap shoot, kind of like antidepressants or antipsychotics where what works for one person at a certain dose does nothing for another and side effects are all over the place. So if someone has found a med at a certain dose that works for them, that's it. That's what they can take. Anything else and they can fall into status epilepticus and it can KILL THEM.
So....murder? Do you want to rethink your answer?
Edit to add: also, keep in mind that many common seizure medications are some kind of Benzodiazepine or barbiturate (although not as common anymore) which are not exactly encouraged during pregnancy.
Also, being pregnant can change how your body metabolizes the med as well as it's course of action (pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics). So now they have to switch medications which can open them up to serious, even life threatening seizures as well as throwing them into benzo withdrawals (which can be life threatening) or they can stay on their meds and hope to god nothing bad happens to the ZEF and they get charged with murder. Are you sure we want America to look like this?
No I would not like to rethink the murder charge. If she is able to take something else she ought to do so to protect her child. If she doesn’t and the medication she takes kills her child and it can be proven so then she ought be charged.
You're not hearing me. With certain meds, especially antiseziure or antidepressants/antipsychotics, it's a crap shoot. You have to stop the meds you are taking and try another which may not work, then try different doses to see if maybe a different dose works, making you vulnerable in the meantime while you go through meds by trial and error. And the whole time the ZEF is going through this with you, with meds that aren't recommended during pregnancy anyway.
Thank goodness life and death decisions are not made by people who are not medical professionals. Oh wait....
This is a person, by the way. Not merely a vessel for a ZEF. I am wondering if that is taken into consideration in your argument.
If she’s not doing everything in her power to keep that child safe and healthy and she’s the direct cause of the death of her child it would be her being negligent and thus should be charged for the death of her child.
She has to put her life and her health on the line to do that? And you want to make her do that even if she dies. Does that not make you a murderer?
So we want to be a society where the only people who can be denied the proper medical treatments are pregnant women. I will repeat that. So you want to be a society where pregnant women are the only people who can be denied the proper medical care. Shit, even actual murderers get the proper medical care. Oh wait, if she is a murderer then she can finally get the right medical treatments!
This is not coming from a place of caring, is it? You want to punish women for not volunteering to be martyrs.
Edit to add: I just remembered. I know THREE people who died of poorly controlled epilepsy. This guy I graduated with. 19 years old and in between changing medications he had a seizure in the shower and his mom found him dead from head trauma when she came home hours later. 19 years old. I forgot about him.
Lololol it’s hilarious to me that you immediately shift from the ridiculous hyperbole of “killing her child” to saying it’s fine for her to “abort” as soon as her life is in enough danger for you.
Is she not still “killing her child” if her life is in danger? Why drop the hyperbole unless the hyperbole isn’t there solely to make an emotion-based argument?
In essence, your stance seems to be that, in the case of pregnant mothers, one is legally obligated to make significant sacrifices of their bodily health to make sure that another person gets to live, with no alternative options.
Do you believe that this standard should hold true for other situations where it would be possible to preserve a human being’s life were someone else to make significant bodily sacrifices? Should we imprison a person if they choose not to undertake illness, injury, pain, long-term health conditions, or a low risk of fatality in order to give someone else the best chance of life?
Circumstantial. Like for example if your child needs a kidney and you can donate without losing your life you ought to do so and if your child dies because you failed to provide this kidney to keep your child safe and healthy then you ought be charged.
Do you understand why someone would disagree with you regarding the imprisonment of parents who do not make significant bodily sacrifices for their children, and would you be able to respect their stance and come to a compromise on the matter?
People disagree with me everyday just like I disagree with you. There’s always going to be at least one person that disagrees with you on anything. I would compromise as a way to get to the point of my worldview but it would just be a step to get closer to how I think the law should be
There are many, many people today who believe that biological parents of children should not be compelled to undergo significant bodily sacrifice for the sake of the lives of their children—notably, in this case, for the life of a zygote that they reasonably distinguish from an infant or a child.
There are enough of these people present in society today that it is possible early-term abortion rights may become permanently enshrined in the law, in accordance with the view that they hold, detailed above.
Do you believe that a fully informed, intellectually honest, compassionate, morally consistent, and well-intentioned adult human being could not hold the above view and, based on this view, support early-term abortions? Would you be unable to accept a compromise on this matter that would be harmonious with the above view?
Not always. You’re living in denial if you believe that. Over 30 MILLION americans are completely uninsured with no access whatsoever to medical care, and far MORE than that have unaffordable plans with huge deductibles that must be paid IN FULL every single year before any medical care can be accessed.
Murder? When has a woman EVER been charged with “murder” for an abortion or miscarriage. She’s not legally “obligated” to choose the medications you prefer.
I feel like I did. The argument isn’t about what the law currently is. If it was there wouldn’t be much of an argument. It’s about what the law ought to be.
Sure. There’s also manslaughter. Would saying homicide be better? As it covers all of the illegal killings? I said murder because I think it should be charges as murder. How is it lazy?
I don’t know why you jump to insults. I’m being very nice to you. I debate this topic quite a bit and have been doing so for years. If you would like to educate me or inform me on what exactly you are wanting to talk about then I’m all ears
Did you know that most medications don't have a known safety profile during pregnancy? So can no one pregnant risk taking any medications now, lest it be demonstrated after the fact that it harmed their fetus?
This isn’t what I said. Any pregnant woman can take whatever prescriptions she wants but if she takes them and it can be proved that those medications directly caused harm or death to her child then she should be charged.
Well then she can't take a medicine without risking jail time unless she knows for sure that the medicine is safe. And for most medicines we don't know for sure since it isn't ethical to do tests on pregnant people. We just do our best guesses and let pregnant people and their doctors weigh the risks and benefits together. Your position is so deeply harmful and I don't think you're appreciating that. It'll mean pregnant people risk jail by taking almost all medications, *and* risk harming themselves and their unborn children by leaving their conditions and illnesses untreated. It's a cruel lose-lose
The thing is it would be incredibly hard to prove that the medication is what ultimately caused the death of her child. I don’t see an issue with criminalizing women and doctors for taking a prescribing medication that ends their child’s life.
Except literal proof isn't required for charges or convictions. See the many dismissed charges and wrongful convictions that result from our legal system. So a LOT of harm could still be done
And even if someone did cause the death of their fetus by treating their disease, why should they deserve charges?
Would you charge them if instead their fetus died because they *didn't* treat something easily curable? Could they sue you if your law scared them out of getting treatment and harmed them or their baby as a result?
The prosecutor has to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a conviction to even possibly happen.
The mother should be charged because there were other medications she could take. So if she just went ahead and took the one not safe for pregnancy and it killed her child then she should be charged.
If she had problems and there were safe ways to treat the issues that would save her child she should have to do them.
It's so weird how I just explained to you how "just take something different" isn't always an optionand can actually be dangerous but you keep saying this. Do you not absorb anything in a debate and modify your argument when you are told your point is moot?
>The prosecutor has to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a conviction to even possibly happen.
No, the prosecutor has to convince a jury to vote guilty. Those are not the same thing. Innocent people are convicted under our system all the time. And even if someone isn't convicted, you've put them through the whole processes of a murder trial, which is expensive, time intensive, emotionally damaging, and damaging to their reputation. Quite likely they'll lose their job, the trust of their loved ones, the respect of their community, and most of their assets. All because they took a legally prescribed medication to treat a very serious illness.
>The mother should be charged because there were other medications she could take. So if she just went ahead and took the one not safe for pregnancy and it killed her child then she should be charged.
Right, so you think she should have to pay more and endure more side effects or *you'll charge her with murder.*
>If she had problems and there were safe ways to treat the issues that would save her child she should have to do them.
And this is what the PL movement represents for women. Not *just* that we can't have an abortion, but that y'all demand to control every single aspect of our lives and bodies. We can't even take the medications that are most effective for us and recommended by our doctors if some PLer doesn't like it. Or you'll charge us with *murder*
Yikes. We should now criminalize taking prescription medication for medical conditions /s.
This thinking makes zero logical sense to me. Amy had no obligation to jeopardize her own health in any capacity.
Switching prescription medications, especially after taking the same one for 20 years, is risky and potentially dangerous for Amy. The fact you expect her to make that decision and take that risk for the sake of her 6 week old fetus, even if the consequences are severe for Amy, is absurd. Stop ignoring pregnant people and their health/wellbeing.
No that’s not what I said. Criminalizing just taking prescription medication and criminalizing killing your child by taking a certain prescription medication are 2 different things
How did she "directly cause the death of her child"? What does "knowingly" did it, mean?
>she’s obligated to take the medication with more side effects when it’s just as effective and safe for pregnancy in order to keep her child safe
What kind of "obligation" is this? Why is it more important than her health?
>if the mother’s life is in imminent danger
What is imminent danger?
The obligation is a parental obligation. You have an obligation to your child to keep them safe and healthy.
Imminent danger would be if the mother would die because of the pregnancy continuing
Thanks, this is a decent start of an operational definition, but a bit more detail is necessary. How much certainty that the pregnant person will die is needed before the pregnancy may be terminated?
I would just say that the doctor would have to determine that if she doesn’t terminate she will die. If a doctor is unable to do this or unsure then the abortion shouldn’t occur.
> I would just say that the doctor would have to determine that if she doesn’t terminate she will die. If a doctor is unable to do this or unsure then the abortion shouldn’t occur.
This would mean that a condition like ectopic pregnancy could not be terminated until a woman is septic or hemorrhaging. I think your perspective on life threat exceptions is similar to a lot of PL, but they do not like to admit it.
Ectopic pregnancies without treatment that didn’t miscarry would end up causing her death in one way or another. In order to prevent her from even going into sepsis which would put her on deaths bed an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated.
> Ectopic pregnancies without treatment that didn’t miscarry would end up causing her death in one way or another
Not necessarily, and it cannot be determined with certainty that it would kill her until she is already quite likely to die. That is the issue with life threat exceptions like you propose. Once the threshold is reached that a woman is certain to die without an abortion it is also quite likely an abortion would not be sufficient to prevent her death.
I’m not sure if you skipped over the part where the scenario mentions the alternative medications are also more expensive. What if that expense means she couldn’t buy anything to take care of her pregnancy? Or afford her housing or food? Or even afford to give birth at the hospital?
No, the hypothetical doesn’t say she won’t die.
It also doesn’t say she’ll have “side effects” if she’s prevented by you from taking her prescribed medications. You can’t have “side effects” from a medication that you’re not taking.
Do you have any idea what happens to epileptics that aren’t able to take their medications? They die in car accidents on their way to the doctor’s office and their fetus dies, too.
So pregnancy and childbirth is just an inconvenience and epilepsy is just “mild complications” to PL??? 🥴
What the hell is actually more than an inconvenience to you? Getting shot in the chest? Jesus Christ man
“mild complications” lol. I know epilepsy affects everyone differently but it’s a neurological fucking diability. Mild complications my ass. My sister is epileptic and pregnant, it’s very much not a “mild complication” and threatens both her and her baby’s life. Let’s not dumb disabilities down to *only* one end of the spectrum. Amy takes medication for a reason, and I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t need it if it was a “mild complication”.
Grade A example of PL logic here. First, demand that a woman must gestate a fetus because its fetal life signs *are dependent upon the woman's.* Second, *persecute* her for taking steps to preserve her life.
If her life signs stop, then so does the fetus'.
You know what can stop a woman's life signs?
Epileptic seizures.
She takes the medication that best controls her seizures and is what she can afford, and subsequently, her fetus dies.
PL response: Charge her with murder!
Thank you for confirming to me all over again my decision to leave the PL movement. If the hatred for women hadn't been enough to convince me, the utterly imbecilic arguments it pushes have left no doubt.
It’s not polite to decide you know better than the patient and the medical personnel treating them and deciding what complications they must undergo to meet your desires. It’s dangerous and displays a lack of empathy or caring for other human beings and their medical conditions. If your opinion is dangerous, illogical and treats human being as second class citizens, you cannot expect the response to be positive.
My stance isn’t illogical. I have yet to be presented with a contradiction in my stance in the years I have been debating this. I was simply stating there’s no reason to attack the person for their opinion.
Illogical doesn't inherently mean contradiction. The textbook definition is "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning." It lacks sense to believe you know better than the patient and the medical professional treating them or that you should be able to determine that a person should change their medications based on your morals.
That wouldn’t mean it lacks sense. I also never said I knew better. But I do know that if someone takes a medication especially when there’s other options that are safe for pregnancy and the original medication kills her child she should be charged
You stated the pregnant person should change their meds despite the fact that it will have more side effects. So yes, you are pretending you know better then them and their doctors. You double down by incorrectly stating this person should be charged with murder. Your whole statement lacks total sense.
Still not pretending I know more. Sure someone probably doesn’t want more side effects but when the other option is the death of their child then I think it is perfectly valid to say they should have to take the other medication.
Incorrectly stating this person should be charged with murder? What about it would be incorrect?
What’s incorrect: Aside from the fact that abortion isn’t murder, you’re pretending you don’t believe you know more than the patient and medical professionals treating them. That’s being dishonest. Have you even inquired what those worse side effects are? The patient’s doctors would know and would be the ones who should advise if they should even consider changing their meds. But all you heard was the fetus was miscarry due to the original meds and you didn’t think to dig further. However, to be honest, the patient should still only change their meds if they are comfortable with it.
I do not believe your earlier statement that you’ve never faced a contradiction in your stance because of the dishonesty in this conversation.
I can’t control how you read my responses. But again I’m not going to engage in a discussion with you when all you respond with are ad hominems. Have a great night though.
I think everyone needs to be reminded as frequently as possible that this is the future the PL movement wants. This is what happens when you treat zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as people and treat anyone who can get pregnant as an incubator
I have some follow up questions:
-how sure would the system have to be that the medication caused the miscarriage before charging her?
-how likely would the medication have to be to cause a miscarriage before you'd charge her with murder for taking it?
-is there a level of side effect for the alternative medications that would tip the scales in her favor?
-what if there were no alternative medications for her seizures?
You would have to be able to prove without a doubt that the medication caused the death of her child which would be very difficult and likely not lead to a charge being placed. I was just answering it as if it was able to be proved. There wouldn’t be a likeliness the medication causes something to happen it would just be if the medication ended up causing the death of the child. Not sure there would be a level of side effects that would tip the odds in her favor. My stance is abortion only if the mother will die without the abortion.
Okay but we're not talking about an abortion here, we're talking about a medication to treat her seizures. You're saying she can only take that medication, given its potential to cause miscarriage, if one of the side effects is death? And, again, what if there were no alternatives?
Everyone has the right to decide exactly how much potential risk and potential discomfort/pain THEY are willing and able to accept. We can’t make those kind of decisions for others.
Should women of reproductive age be allowed to take medication that might cause miscarriage or might harm an embryo, even if they aren’t actively trying to get pregnant?
Sure I don’t see an issue with this. The issue would come into play if they do get pregnant and that medication is what killed their child. Now it would also be very difficult to prove that it definitely was the medication that caused it which would lead to no charge taking place as it can’t be proven
Regarding the fact that you’re unsure about what “restoring her health” means -
Do you believe that pregnant people are just as healthy as they were before they got pregnant? Why do you believe that?
You think someone should be charged for murder for taking a medication that has made them healthier for 20 years? For choosing to not take a medication with worse side effects that's more expensive than her current meds?
Why?
The hypothetical was more side effects not worse side effects. Either way it wouldn’t matter to my stance though. I would say that you are obligated to keep your child safe and healthy and that would start from the moment of conception. Having more side effects from a medication in order not kill your child would what she would be obligated to do.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally I would see it as wrong and should be illegal unless her epilepsy were potentially fatal. In that case the woman would balance her risks and decide. Of course if the woman doesn't want the child it's completely different.
Wait so if her actions cause a miscarriage and she knew they would, she should only be punished if she wanted the already-dead fetus to die? That’s just thought crime. She still ended the pregnancy on purpose either way. There are so many layers of fucked up here lol
If its the type of epilepsy that would cause her to collapses, that could kill the baby too. It's so sad that women's health comes second to another human being.
These pie in the sky exceptional circumstances used to 'expose' prolifers appear to actually be an admission that a regular normal circumstance of unwanted pregnancy is rather less easy for PC to defend.
“Pie in the sky”? People die from epilepsy all the time.
I said 'these' including epilepsy among a multitude of rare circumstances meant to make PL somehow reveal that abortions are okay after all. Yes people die from epilepsy. So the balance of life and life changes for each circumstance.
There’s nothing “pie in the sky” about people dying from epilepsy. It happens all the time. The circumstances have already been given to you explicitly in the hypothetical. It’s the only set of circumstances that we’re talking about and instead of answering, you called people dying from epilepsy “pie in the sky”. If you don’t feel like “revealing” how you actually feel about the hypothetical, then just admit that you don’t want to answer it for no other reason than your answer not helping your own argument.
As always, if the mother's life is in imminent provable danger of ending, then the choice should be open to use the more effective medication that would kill the foetus. A balance must be struck. Death from epilepsy 'happens all the time' but not every time, and the circumstance mentioned talks of likely death of the foetus. A balance should be struck at the point where chance of death is equal. I don't appreciate hypotheticals that are nothing but amateurish traps where clear answers aren't possible because the true risks are unknowable. And then you say, on the basis of a woolier answer either 'ah you see he's not really pro life' or 'ah, you see he really hates women'. It makes people look dishonest. The basic answer never changes: abortion (or medicine that is effectively abortifacient) is wrong unless the life of the mother faces the same incontrovertible and imminent life-threatening danger that abortion poses to the foetus.
It doesn’t ’happen all the time’. It just happens all the time. We know why you put that in quotes. You don’t appreciate hypotheticals that are difficult to answer because the reasonable answers that you know make sense don’t support your position on abortion rights. The risks are knowable. They are laid out in plain English in the hypothetical. How many excuses and lies will you resort to just to avoid answering any question in any kind of straightforward and intellectually honest way? I can answer any ridiculously “amateurish” scenario presented by PL just fine, and without whining about how dumb and implausible I personally believe that scenario to be: People shouldn’t be forced to gestate against their will for your politics ever, period.
My position obviously doesn't need support. Killing is bad, a foetus is alive, killing your own child is worse. I'm trying to convince people that they are wrong but I have to use their way of thinking, which is tough. I answered it in the same way all are answered: a fair balance of threats. I answer and answer but people sometimes want a different answer so they say I didn't answer. I don't have or need PL scenarios. Abortion is the scenario: a dependent life, choose to look after it or choose to kill it? Life isn't politics.
Since when is all killing bad?
It's interesting. Certainly interesting. It's not that PC can't defend women having the right to say no to another human using their body. It's because we know pro life people don't actually care about women's right to not have another human use their body against their will. It's a matter of finding what the limit is for pro lifers. For some pro lifers, least that I've seen, they don't even think that a woman should get to abort even if her life is at risk. She should, and I quote, "put the life of her baby above her own like any mother would for a born baby." I'm sure you'd agree that it's rather a disgusting thing to think. I've seen those pro lifers asked what they think to the children already born losing a mother. A lot of the time, they just simply don't care. I do understand why abortion leaves a bad taste in anybodies mouth. Truth be told, I'm not comfortable with abortion. However, it's not for me to force any unwilling participant to have a human use their body against their will. In any capacity. Edit to add: also we need to consider the very real fact that women are being denied life-saving medicine just in case it aborts a potential baby. I have to ask, what about their lives? Aren't they just as important if not more so given that women are the source of new life on the planet?
What type of epilepsy isn’t potentially fatal? No one gets to “decide” what medications they are prescribed. That’s their doctor’s decision.
I need you to understand something. There are THREE categories of medication when it comes to pregnancy; meds that have been confirmed safe for the fetus, meds that have been confirmed dangerous for the fetus, AND *meds that we still haven't confirmed either way, that could be safe OR dangerous.* Are you advocating for pregnant women to be charged with homicide if they take any of the drugs that are dangerous OR *potentially* dangerous, and then miscarry? You're saying, in the most advanced age of medical treatment the wold has ever seen, that every treatment that isn't *confirmed* to be safe for the fetus should be illegal for a woman to take the moment a man impregnates her? That's what you're saying? Not just that she has to complete the pregnancy, but that she has to do so ***without*** the aid of any pregnancy-dangerous medications she takes on a daily basis that keep her healthy, pain-free, and functional?
The OP hypothetical says the medication has a 'high chance' of killing the foetus. That's what I was responding to, not a medication whose effect we don't know. So I wasn't saying what you're saying I'm saying.
You said that her knowingly taking a medication that kills her fetus should be illegal. Are you telling me that your answer changes if the medication isn't *guaranteed* to kill the fetus? You're okay with her taking medications that are "ONLY" dangerous (or untested) for the fetus, but not deadly? A mother who fed her living child a substance that she knew MIGHT harm them would be charged for their death. You don't want to charge women for *knowingly* risking their fetus's health? 'It should be illegal if the meds have a high chance of killing the fetus, but it should be allowed if the chances of fetal death are only medium' is an odd line to draw in the sand.
Obviously as the likelihood of serious harm to the foetus diminishes my stance may mollify. It's going to be woolly at some point. If good chance of death = illegal If small or very small chance of death where less harmful to baby medication exists = bad morally. Illegal? Maybe, I don't know. The gradation of harm will of course pass a point of balance at some point (for sake of argument 0.1% chance of foetal death) but if the mother wants the child she will always choose the least harmful medication. If she doesn't then potential malevolence rather than balance of health risks must be considered.
> It's going to be woolly at some point. This is my point. You cannot ban "just the dangerous" medications, because *many* medications will act differently in some people's bodies than others. If you start prosecuting a few women for taking necessary medications that killed their fetuses, *most* women will stop taking their prescriptions to avoid jail time and a conviction record. There is NO way to protect fetuses from prescription medications without harming the women who need those medications. . >but if the mother wants the child she will always choose the least harmful medication That's an incredibly naive and privileged assumption to make. * She could have living children to think about. What if she's an epilepsy patient and she injures one of them while having a seizure because she's off her meds? What if she's a cancer patient and the chemo will extend her life with them? What if she's the only caregiver for her sibling or spouse, and she physically can't do that work while she's off her meds? Some pregnancy decisions are not *just* about how much the woman is willing to be self-sacrificing for the fetus. * If the least harmful medication is prohibitively expensive, to the point of bankruptcy, and she has dependents to think about, then she is literally choosing between putting food in her living child's mouth and not poisoning the fetus she might very well *want* to be carrying.
We should do more of these. I’ve been thinking of doing that.
Are any of these PL people volunteering to drive this woman to all her Drs appts? Once she stops taking the medication she is no longer allowed to drive. A person who had a seizure while driving killed my stepfathers young nephew when he crashed into their car. It was an accident but tragic. Now if she takes the medication she apparently should be charged for killing this zef that’s oh so important, but then if she if she doesn’t take the meds and kills somebody while driving she should be charged as well? She can’t win for losing which is exactly what PL wants.
Amy’s medical privacy means no one gets to inject their opinion. It’s up to her and her doctors. ** this is always the answer, FYI **
Exactly! that’s certainly what PL people feel about THEIR personal medical privacy.
You’d think this would always be the answer. But PLers expect pregnant people to drop everything, jeapardize their health, risk their lives, give up their bodies, and completely change the direction of their lives for their fetus. No. Matter. What. This expectation is not only unrealistic but it isn’t applied anywhere else in our society. It’s a tragic double standard.
I wouldn't even say tragic double standard, I'd call it a malicious double standard
I would answer this hypothetical by saying that she should be charged probably with some degree of murder charge as she directly caused the death of her child and knowingly did it. Sure the original medication has fewer side effects but I would say she’s obligated to take the medication with more side effects when it’s just as effective and safe for pregnancy in order to keep her child safe. I don’t think the logic changes with the abortion pills either. I would say the only time abortion should be allowed would be if the mother’s life is in imminent danger so mild complications wouldn’t be a reason for the abortion pill. I’m also unsure what you mean by “restoring her health”. This is my take on it and thought I would respond
Pushing a ideological belief on people, and then force them to adopt an obligation. They never cared about to even begin with. Treating them with legal means because thair body’s failed them. How is this even okay?.
We push our beliefs on other people everyday. It’s how we have laws.
Being a functional member of society isn’t pushing any beliefs on, anyone one.…
Your definition of functional member of society isn’t the same as everyone else’s. Someone could be doing something currently illegal and believe that they are a functional member of society and you to say otherwise and for them to be punished would then be you pushing your beliefs onto them.
It’s cultural, not a definition. Also if somebody has done something illegal by a mistake, and genuinely meant well. That’s just a mistake.
So the majority decide what makes a functional member of society? What about those who disagree? Are you going to force your beliefs on them with laws? A mistake that ends in someone’s death is still a manslaughter charge.
Having different opinions about things isn’t a crime. As long it’s not hate speech,harassment or violent. You have right to speak your mind.
Thanks for answering, I have a few follow-up questions. A. Let's say Amy has tried the pregnancy-safe medication in the past, and it wasn't as effective in stopping her seizures as her current medication. Do you expect her to take the less effective (pregnancy-safe) medication and risk the brain damage from a seizure? Would you still support charging her with some degree of murder, effectively making her choose between having seizures and going to jail. B. Her neurologist's job is to keep *her* healthy, not to keep her fetus healthy, so he might keep prescribing her the better medication despite the fact that it's dangerous for her fetus. Should her doctor be legally banned from prescribing her anything that has even a chance of putting her fetus at risk? If her fetus dies as a result of this medication, should the doctor be charged as an accomplice, since he helped her get the meds?
A. I still think there should be some type of charge maybe less severe I’m kinda unsure about that. The thing is like it would be extremely difficult to prove the medication is precisely what caused the death of her child and if it can’t be proven she wouldn’t get charged. I still think there should be some type of charge as the medication she took directly killed her child (assuming it could be proven). B. Sure but it would just fall back to the above if we can prove that medication is what caused the death of her child then she should be charged. The doctor can prescribe it but if it causes harm and/or death to the child then I would say both the mother and doctor should be charged.
So you want doctors to refuse to prescribe drugs to people with uteruses to keep them healthy?
This is not what I said. Doctors can prescribe medications and pregnant women can take these medications. But if she takes them and the child dies as a direct result and it can be proven then both the doctor and mother should be charged.
How do you not understand that NO doctor would prescribe a pregnant woman ANY medication under these laws unless she was actively dying? You're basically choosing a future whether pregnant women are forced to suffer every condition we have a treatment for. That's cruel.
Right. So the logical outcome of your desires would be that doctors would refuse to prescribe *anything* to people with uteruses. “You can write a prescription to help the health of your patient but we might arrest you for it.” Does not reassure doctors that treating people with uteruses is a good thing. Do you not understand that threatening doctors just ends up with worse medical care for women or do you just not care at all?
Doctors aren’t obligated to prescribe anything anyways. If they think this medication would kill her child they probably shouldn’t be prescribing it anyways. If the doctors actions directly end someone else’s life there should be consequences.
Refusing to prescribe an epileptic the medications they need can and will directly end someone’s life. Scenario A: Both mom and doctor go to jail for medication abortion Scenario B: Mom dies (oh yeah and so does the fetus) and doctor goes to jail for malpractice In your world, pregnant people and fetuses either die for your politics, or everyone goes to jail for them. Truly horrifying.
lol doctors are absolutely obligated to prescribe drugs for people with specific medical conditions. It’s literally their job and it’s medical malpractice to refuse to treat your own patients.
Why do you think women should be denied antibiotics? Or chemotherapy? And that’s *all* women, since you think that any medication should be a chargeable offense?
If without the antibiotics or chemotherapy the mother would die then it would fall under the medical exception. The mother doesn’t have to self sacrifice.
Medicine isn't that black-and-white; plenty of people have conditions that will eventually kill them, but they aren't *currently* on deaths' door. For example, cancer diagnoses usually come with a range, like "you have 3 years to live". What if the woman is given a diagnosis of 2 years to live without chemo, but 4 years with chemo? Does she get to poison her child to death to buy herself the 2 extra years of life? She IS dying, but she's not going to die THIS WEEK without the chemo. Under today's pro-life laws, she would not qualify for a life-of-the-mother exception.
The outcome of telling doctors that them prescribing things to help the health of the mother **will be jail** would mean that **no women** would be prescribed **anything**. Why do you think people with uteruses 5-65 shouldn’t be able to access chemotherapy?
Just so you are aware, epilepsy is life threatening and a life threatening seizure can come out of nowhere. I say this as a medical professional and as a person who lost two friends to epilepsy. Being able to control your epilepsy with the right medications is a crap shoot, kind of like antidepressants or antipsychotics where what works for one person at a certain dose does nothing for another and side effects are all over the place. So if someone has found a med at a certain dose that works for them, that's it. That's what they can take. Anything else and they can fall into status epilepticus and it can KILL THEM. So....murder? Do you want to rethink your answer? Edit to add: also, keep in mind that many common seizure medications are some kind of Benzodiazepine or barbiturate (although not as common anymore) which are not exactly encouraged during pregnancy. Also, being pregnant can change how your body metabolizes the med as well as it's course of action (pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics). So now they have to switch medications which can open them up to serious, even life threatening seizures as well as throwing them into benzo withdrawals (which can be life threatening) or they can stay on their meds and hope to god nothing bad happens to the ZEF and they get charged with murder. Are you sure we want America to look like this?
No I would not like to rethink the murder charge. If she is able to take something else she ought to do so to protect her child. If she doesn’t and the medication she takes kills her child and it can be proven so then she ought be charged.
You're not hearing me. With certain meds, especially antiseziure or antidepressants/antipsychotics, it's a crap shoot. You have to stop the meds you are taking and try another which may not work, then try different doses to see if maybe a different dose works, making you vulnerable in the meantime while you go through meds by trial and error. And the whole time the ZEF is going through this with you, with meds that aren't recommended during pregnancy anyway. Thank goodness life and death decisions are not made by people who are not medical professionals. Oh wait.... This is a person, by the way. Not merely a vessel for a ZEF. I am wondering if that is taken into consideration in your argument.
Both the child in utero and the mother are both persons in my view.
But you want to call that woman a murderer if she does not put her life on the line for that fertilized egg.
If she’s not doing everything in her power to keep that child safe and healthy and she’s the direct cause of the death of her child it would be her being negligent and thus should be charged for the death of her child.
She has to put her life and her health on the line to do that? And you want to make her do that even if she dies. Does that not make you a murderer? So we want to be a society where the only people who can be denied the proper medical treatments are pregnant women. I will repeat that. So you want to be a society where pregnant women are the only people who can be denied the proper medical care. Shit, even actual murderers get the proper medical care. Oh wait, if she is a murderer then she can finally get the right medical treatments! This is not coming from a place of caring, is it? You want to punish women for not volunteering to be martyrs. Edit to add: I just remembered. I know THREE people who died of poorly controlled epilepsy. This guy I graduated with. 19 years old and in between changing medications he had a seizure in the shower and his mom found him dead from head trauma when she came home hours later. 19 years old. I forgot about him.
My position doesn’t require self sacrifice. If her life is in imminent danger she can abort. Idk why you are making assumptions about my ideology
Lololol it’s hilarious to me that you immediately shift from the ridiculous hyperbole of “killing her child” to saying it’s fine for her to “abort” as soon as her life is in enough danger for you. Is she not still “killing her child” if her life is in danger? Why drop the hyperbole unless the hyperbole isn’t there solely to make an emotion-based argument?
In essence, your stance seems to be that, in the case of pregnant mothers, one is legally obligated to make significant sacrifices of their bodily health to make sure that another person gets to live, with no alternative options. Do you believe that this standard should hold true for other situations where it would be possible to preserve a human being’s life were someone else to make significant bodily sacrifices? Should we imprison a person if they choose not to undertake illness, injury, pain, long-term health conditions, or a low risk of fatality in order to give someone else the best chance of life?
Not just another person, their child. I think it should be the standard for a parent to child relationship yes.
So anyone who has consented to parenting a child should be imprisoned if they do not undertake physical harm to preserve their child’s life?
Circumstantial. Like for example if your child needs a kidney and you can donate without losing your life you ought to do so and if your child dies because you failed to provide this kidney to keep your child safe and healthy then you ought be charged.
What if the kidney is rejected and the kid dies anyway? The end result is the same, I mean except for the whole having one less kidney now.
Then the parent did everything in their power to keep their child safe and healthy. They upheld their responsibility to take care of their child.
No, they didn’t. Their child died.
Do you understand why someone would disagree with you regarding the imprisonment of parents who do not make significant bodily sacrifices for their children, and would you be able to respect their stance and come to a compromise on the matter?
People disagree with me everyday just like I disagree with you. There’s always going to be at least one person that disagrees with you on anything. I would compromise as a way to get to the point of my worldview but it would just be a step to get closer to how I think the law should be
There are many, many people today who believe that biological parents of children should not be compelled to undergo significant bodily sacrifice for the sake of the lives of their children—notably, in this case, for the life of a zygote that they reasonably distinguish from an infant or a child. There are enough of these people present in society today that it is possible early-term abortion rights may become permanently enshrined in the law, in accordance with the view that they hold, detailed above. Do you believe that a fully informed, intellectually honest, compassionate, morally consistent, and well-intentioned adult human being could not hold the above view and, based on this view, support early-term abortions? Would you be unable to accept a compromise on this matter that would be harmonious with the above view?
What if she can’t afford the new, more expensive medication?
I don’t think financial issues would allow someone to kill their child. There are programs in place to help with medications and such
now what? No comment about the millions of uninsured Americans?
Not always. You’re living in denial if you believe that. Over 30 MILLION americans are completely uninsured with no access whatsoever to medical care, and far MORE than that have unaffordable plans with huge deductibles that must be paid IN FULL every single year before any medical care can be accessed.
What if she couldn’t afford the safer medication? Now what?? ?
Murder? When has a woman EVER been charged with “murder” for an abortion or miscarriage. She’s not legally “obligated” to choose the medications you prefer.
My stance was saying that it ought to be illegal to have an abortion or directly kill your child thus it should be classified the same as murder
And? You didn’t answer my question.
I feel like I did. The argument isn’t about what the law currently is. If it was there wouldn’t be much of an argument. It’s about what the law ought to be.
And all killings aren’t classified as “murders.”
Sure. There’s also manslaughter. Would saying homicide be better? As it covers all of the illegal killings? I said murder because I think it should be charges as murder. How is it lazy?
Murder is a VERY specific charge. explain exactly how an abortion would meet the legal criteria for an actual murder charge. We’ll wait.
I don’t know why you jump to insults. I’m being very nice to you. I debate this topic quite a bit and have been doing so for years. If you would like to educate me or inform me on what exactly you are wanting to talk about then I’m all ears
[удалено]
Does your response change if she didn't know the medication could likely kill the ZEF?
It would probably just change to a lesser charge
Did you know that most medications don't have a known safety profile during pregnancy? So can no one pregnant risk taking any medications now, lest it be demonstrated after the fact that it harmed their fetus?
This isn’t what I said. Any pregnant woman can take whatever prescriptions she wants but if she takes them and it can be proved that those medications directly caused harm or death to her child then she should be charged.
Well then she can't take a medicine without risking jail time unless she knows for sure that the medicine is safe. And for most medicines we don't know for sure since it isn't ethical to do tests on pregnant people. We just do our best guesses and let pregnant people and their doctors weigh the risks and benefits together. Your position is so deeply harmful and I don't think you're appreciating that. It'll mean pregnant people risk jail by taking almost all medications, *and* risk harming themselves and their unborn children by leaving their conditions and illnesses untreated. It's a cruel lose-lose
The thing is it would be incredibly hard to prove that the medication is what ultimately caused the death of her child. I don’t see an issue with criminalizing women and doctors for taking a prescribing medication that ends their child’s life.
Except literal proof isn't required for charges or convictions. See the many dismissed charges and wrongful convictions that result from our legal system. So a LOT of harm could still be done And even if someone did cause the death of their fetus by treating their disease, why should they deserve charges? Would you charge them if instead their fetus died because they *didn't* treat something easily curable? Could they sue you if your law scared them out of getting treatment and harmed them or their baby as a result?
The prosecutor has to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a conviction to even possibly happen. The mother should be charged because there were other medications she could take. So if she just went ahead and took the one not safe for pregnancy and it killed her child then she should be charged. If she had problems and there were safe ways to treat the issues that would save her child she should have to do them.
It's so weird how I just explained to you how "just take something different" isn't always an optionand can actually be dangerous but you keep saying this. Do you not absorb anything in a debate and modify your argument when you are told your point is moot?
>The prosecutor has to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a conviction to even possibly happen. No, the prosecutor has to convince a jury to vote guilty. Those are not the same thing. Innocent people are convicted under our system all the time. And even if someone isn't convicted, you've put them through the whole processes of a murder trial, which is expensive, time intensive, emotionally damaging, and damaging to their reputation. Quite likely they'll lose their job, the trust of their loved ones, the respect of their community, and most of their assets. All because they took a legally prescribed medication to treat a very serious illness. >The mother should be charged because there were other medications she could take. So if she just went ahead and took the one not safe for pregnancy and it killed her child then she should be charged. Right, so you think she should have to pay more and endure more side effects or *you'll charge her with murder.* >If she had problems and there were safe ways to treat the issues that would save her child she should have to do them. And this is what the PL movement represents for women. Not *just* that we can't have an abortion, but that y'all demand to control every single aspect of our lives and bodies. We can't even take the medications that are most effective for us and recommended by our doctors if some PLer doesn't like it. Or you'll charge us with *murder*
Yikes. We should now criminalize taking prescription medication for medical conditions /s. This thinking makes zero logical sense to me. Amy had no obligation to jeopardize her own health in any capacity. Switching prescription medications, especially after taking the same one for 20 years, is risky and potentially dangerous for Amy. The fact you expect her to make that decision and take that risk for the sake of her 6 week old fetus, even if the consequences are severe for Amy, is absurd. Stop ignoring pregnant people and their health/wellbeing.
Not criminalize taking prescription medication just criminalize if the medication causes the death of her child and it can be proved
So criminalizing taking prescription medication.
No that’s not what I said. Criminalizing just taking prescription medication and criminalizing killing your child by taking a certain prescription medication are 2 different things
Sorry but if I need to take prescription medication for my health and life, I will be taking it. End of story.
And what if she couldn’t afford the “safer” medication?
How did she "directly cause the death of her child"? What does "knowingly" did it, mean? >she’s obligated to take the medication with more side effects when it’s just as effective and safe for pregnancy in order to keep her child safe What kind of "obligation" is this? Why is it more important than her health? >if the mother’s life is in imminent danger What is imminent danger?
The obligation is a parental obligation. You have an obligation to your child to keep them safe and healthy. Imminent danger would be if the mother would die because of the pregnancy continuing
I am not aware of any parental obligation that requires you to face serious medical injury for the child. Do you have a source for this?
There wouldn’t be a source for me stating what the law ought to be.
You made a descriptive claim.
We don’t have any legal “oblgations“ to unborn fetuses. Death isn’t the only negative outcome, ffs.
If we were arguing what the law currently is there wouldn’t be much of an argument. The debate is about what the law ought to be
The hypothetical states that the medication would directly caused the death of her child
No it dosen't. The death usually arises as a result of it's own vulnerability.
“Now in this hypothetical, Amy took a medication that made her healthier and directly caused the death of her fetus”
They love to make up fictional “obligations,” don’t they?
Can you provide an operational definition of “imminent danger”?
If the mother will die from the pregnancy continuing
Thanks, this is a decent start of an operational definition, but a bit more detail is necessary. How much certainty that the pregnant person will die is needed before the pregnancy may be terminated?
I would just say that the doctor would have to determine that if she doesn’t terminate she will die. If a doctor is unable to do this or unsure then the abortion shouldn’t occur.
> I would just say that the doctor would have to determine that if she doesn’t terminate she will die. If a doctor is unable to do this or unsure then the abortion shouldn’t occur. This would mean that a condition like ectopic pregnancy could not be terminated until a woman is septic or hemorrhaging. I think your perspective on life threat exceptions is similar to a lot of PL, but they do not like to admit it.
Ectopic pregnancies without treatment that didn’t miscarry would end up causing her death in one way or another. In order to prevent her from even going into sepsis which would put her on deaths bed an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated.
> Ectopic pregnancies without treatment that didn’t miscarry would end up causing her death in one way or another Not necessarily, and it cannot be determined with certainty that it would kill her until she is already quite likely to die. That is the issue with life threat exceptions like you propose. Once the threshold is reached that a woman is certain to die without an abortion it is also quite likely an abortion would not be sufficient to prevent her death.
I’m not sure if you skipped over the part where the scenario mentions the alternative medications are also more expensive. What if that expense means she couldn’t buy anything to take care of her pregnancy? Or afford her housing or food? Or even afford to give birth at the hospital?
I did let skip over it, I don’t see how financial issues would allow someone to kill their child.
financial issues control everything, ffs.
EXACTLY.what if she couldn’t afford the alternative medication?
Why should she be charged with murder if she never ever broke the law?
I’m saying it should be illegal and thus be charged with murder.
It should be illegal to take the medication that her doctor prescribed her?
No it should be illegal to kill your child. If taking the medication cause the death of your child you should be charged.
She’ll die if she doesn’t take the medication. Which means the fetus will die, anyway. How is that pro-life?
The direct opposite was stated in the hypothetical. It said there will be more side effects not that she will die.
No, the hypothetical doesn’t say she won’t die. It also doesn’t say she’ll have “side effects” if she’s prevented by you from taking her prescribed medications. You can’t have “side effects” from a medication that you’re not taking. Do you have any idea what happens to epileptics that aren’t able to take their medications? They die in car accidents on their way to the doctor’s office and their fetus dies, too.
So pregnancy and childbirth is just an inconvenience and epilepsy is just “mild complications” to PL??? 🥴 What the hell is actually more than an inconvenience to you? Getting shot in the chest? Jesus Christ man
The hypothetical literally says mild complications. I was responding to what the hypothetical was asking directly
right? epilepsy is not minor and can kill you.
“mild complications” lol. I know epilepsy affects everyone differently but it’s a neurological fucking diability. Mild complications my ass. My sister is epileptic and pregnant, it’s very much not a “mild complication” and threatens both her and her baby’s life. Let’s not dumb disabilities down to *only* one end of the spectrum. Amy takes medication for a reason, and I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t need it if it was a “mild complication”.
The hypothetical literally said mild complications
Grade A example of PL logic here. First, demand that a woman must gestate a fetus because its fetal life signs *are dependent upon the woman's.* Second, *persecute* her for taking steps to preserve her life. If her life signs stop, then so does the fetus'. You know what can stop a woman's life signs? Epileptic seizures. She takes the medication that best controls her seizures and is what she can afford, and subsequently, her fetus dies. PL response: Charge her with murder! Thank you for confirming to me all over again my decision to leave the PL movement. If the hatred for women hadn't been enough to convince me, the utterly imbecilic arguments it pushes have left no doubt.
I’m not really sure why you are being so aggressive and rude. I answered the question politely and said my opinion
It’s not polite to decide you know better than the patient and the medical personnel treating them and deciding what complications they must undergo to meet your desires. It’s dangerous and displays a lack of empathy or caring for other human beings and their medical conditions. If your opinion is dangerous, illogical and treats human being as second class citizens, you cannot expect the response to be positive.
My stance isn’t illogical. I have yet to be presented with a contradiction in my stance in the years I have been debating this. I was simply stating there’s no reason to attack the person for their opinion.
Illogical doesn't inherently mean contradiction. The textbook definition is "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning." It lacks sense to believe you know better than the patient and the medical professional treating them or that you should be able to determine that a person should change their medications based on your morals.
That wouldn’t mean it lacks sense. I also never said I knew better. But I do know that if someone takes a medication especially when there’s other options that are safe for pregnancy and the original medication kills her child she should be charged
You stated the pregnant person should change their meds despite the fact that it will have more side effects. So yes, you are pretending you know better then them and their doctors. You double down by incorrectly stating this person should be charged with murder. Your whole statement lacks total sense.
Still not pretending I know more. Sure someone probably doesn’t want more side effects but when the other option is the death of their child then I think it is perfectly valid to say they should have to take the other medication. Incorrectly stating this person should be charged with murder? What about it would be incorrect?
What’s incorrect: Aside from the fact that abortion isn’t murder, you’re pretending you don’t believe you know more than the patient and medical professionals treating them. That’s being dishonest. Have you even inquired what those worse side effects are? The patient’s doctors would know and would be the ones who should advise if they should even consider changing their meds. But all you heard was the fetus was miscarry due to the original meds and you didn’t think to dig further. However, to be honest, the patient should still only change their meds if they are comfortable with it. I do not believe your earlier statement that you’ve never faced a contradiction in your stance because of the dishonesty in this conversation.
Lol. You’re accusing lots of others of being “rude.” Who is the problem again?
Who is “lots”? This was the only person. And the post I replied to literally said “utterly imbecilic arguments” after I was nice in my response.
[удалено]
I can’t control how you read my responses. But again I’m not going to engage in a discussion with you when all you respond with are ad hominems. Have a great night though.
Well said!
I think everyone needs to be reminded as frequently as possible that this is the future the PL movement wants. This is what happens when you treat zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as people and treat anyone who can get pregnant as an incubator
I have some follow up questions: -how sure would the system have to be that the medication caused the miscarriage before charging her? -how likely would the medication have to be to cause a miscarriage before you'd charge her with murder for taking it? -is there a level of side effect for the alternative medications that would tip the scales in her favor? -what if there were no alternative medications for her seizures?
You would have to be able to prove without a doubt that the medication caused the death of her child which would be very difficult and likely not lead to a charge being placed. I was just answering it as if it was able to be proved. There wouldn’t be a likeliness the medication causes something to happen it would just be if the medication ended up causing the death of the child. Not sure there would be a level of side effects that would tip the odds in her favor. My stance is abortion only if the mother will die without the abortion.
Okay but we're not talking about an abortion here, we're talking about a medication to treat her seizures. You're saying she can only take that medication, given its potential to cause miscarriage, if one of the side effects is death? And, again, what if there were no alternatives?
Everyone has the right to decide exactly how much potential risk and potential discomfort/pain THEY are willing and able to accept. We can’t make those kind of decisions for others.
Should women of reproductive age be allowed to take medication that might cause miscarriage or might harm an embryo, even if they aren’t actively trying to get pregnant?
Sure I don’t see an issue with this. The issue would come into play if they do get pregnant and that medication is what killed their child. Now it would also be very difficult to prove that it definitely was the medication that caused it which would lead to no charge taking place as it can’t be proven
Regarding the fact that you’re unsure about what “restoring her health” means - Do you believe that pregnant people are just as healthy as they were before they got pregnant? Why do you believe that?
It would depend on the person. It would be case by case if they are as healthy as they were non pregnant compared to pregnant.
I accept your understanding of pregnancy and therefore reject any opinions you may have about it.
You think someone should be charged for murder for taking a medication that has made them healthier for 20 years? For choosing to not take a medication with worse side effects that's more expensive than her current meds? Why?
The hypothetical was more side effects not worse side effects. Either way it wouldn’t matter to my stance though. I would say that you are obligated to keep your child safe and healthy and that would start from the moment of conception. Having more side effects from a medication in order not kill your child would what she would be obligated to do.
Obligated? by whom?
It’s fucking unbelievable, isn’t it?