Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be America’s New Normal.

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,420
15,177
113
No one has ever argued whether your 10yo is or isn't a person. That is not the same for a fetus. How far are many willing to go when they're changing the accepted rules.
No, my point is that if we get to a point where there are tax breaks and credits for a fetus, then the law has decided it’s a person and there would be no argument for paying it back. It’s stupid.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,420
15,177
113
These have no relevance for the abortion debate.
They do if abortion/killing fetuses is criminalized. If a woman can’t get a medical procedure to end it, but ends it in other ways, is that really going to fly? It opens the door for investigation of every miscarriage.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,420
15,177
113
I disagree. A sperm cell cannot become a person.
But this is what’s dangerous about the “at fertilization” bills. We have no way of knowing when fertilization happens - we learn about that later when there’s a positive pregnancy test, which is typically at 4-8 weeks. “At fertilization” is not enforceable, but does give avenue for people to fill in that time gap on their own. Miscarry at 8 weeks? What were you doing during weeks 1-4 that might have caused this?
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
2) if the fetus is a human, shouldn’t it be allowed to have a SSN? You can have one assigned at birth?

4) it doesnt matter if anybody depends on the fetus for financial earnings. A life insurance policy can be taken out on babies and children. Why wouldnt you extend that to a fetus?

In both cases, I can see allowing this. I think few parents would do so, but fine with me.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
3) If a parent claims a fetus as a dependent and receives a tax benefit from that, should they be required to pay back that benefit if the fetus doesn't survive to birth? Same with the $3600 Child Tax Credit for qualifying filers?

No. The credit would cover expenses incurred until the fetus dies.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
Every time I bring up embryos created for in vitro fertilization in an abortion thread none of the pro life posters ever respond. Seriously this has to be an issue if some states make laws holding that life begins at conception. Will some states not allow the practice of in vitro fertilization? Why are none of the pro lifers outraged that 1000s of babies are stored in freezers?

I did respond below. Nuance.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
They do if abortion/killing fetuses is criminalized. If a woman can’t get a medical procedure to end it, but ends it in other ways, is that really going to fly? It opens the door for investigation of every miscarriage.

Well, yes, if a miscarriage is somehow purposely induced, that would be illegal if abortion was illegal.
 
Last edited:

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
But this is what’s dangerous about the “at fertilization” bills. We have no way of knowing when fertilization happens - we learn about that later when there’s a positive pregnancy test, which is typically at 4-8 weeks. “At fertilization” is not enforceable, but does give avenue for people to fill in that time gap on their own. Miscarry at 8 weeks? What were you doing during weeks 1-4 that might have caused this?

Yes, this is complicated and full of difficulties.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,420
15,177
113
Well, yes, if a miscarriage is somehow purposely induced, that would be illegal if abortion was illegal.
Sure…..and could there be a murder/manslaughter difference? Girl parties a lot and doesn’t stop until she finds out she’s pregnant and miscarries at 7-8 weeks, is there a manslaughter/negligent homicide angle on her drinking/drugs between fertilization and the miscarriage?

When a state sets a law based on an unmeasurable starting point, they’re doing so for a reason. Listen to what they’re saying.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
Why the nuance? Why do you not consider their disposal murder, but you consider the abortion of an embryo from a woman murder?

Because one (embryo in a woman) will likely be a birthed child someday, but the other (frozen embryo) will not be unless further action (implantation) occurs.

Again, nuanced and messy, but something adults must be able to process.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
Sure…..and could there be a murder/manslaughter difference? Girl parties a lot and doesn’t stop until she finds out she’s pregnant and miscarries at 7-8 weeks, is there a manslaughter/negligent homicide angle on her drinking/drugs between fertilization and the miscarriage?
No. No mens rea.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
23,198
30,067
113
Has the story in the OP been reported by anyone other than slate?

couldn’t find anything.

You’d think national media would pick it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5

gohawks50

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 28, 2010
8,459
14,139
113
Because one (embryo in a woman) will likely be a birthed child someday, but the other (frozen embryo) will not be unless further action (implantation) occurs.

Again, nuanced and messy, but something adults must be able to process.
One, the frozen embryo, was created on purpose to produce a life. The other was created by accident. It seems to me that if the accident is a life surely the purposely fertilized embryo is a life as well. Earlier in the thread you spoke against abortion in the case of rape or incest because "it's still a human protected by the constitution", why are the frozen embryos not "human?"
 
Last edited:

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,473
113
Has the story in the OP been reported by anyone other than slate?

couldn’t find anything.

You’d think national media would pick it up.


LSS: this is about as reliable as The Blaze
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
33,741
19,050
113
Because one (embryo in a woman) will likely be a birthed child someday, but the other (frozen embryo) will not be unless further action (implantation) occurs.

Again, nuanced and messy, but something adults must be able to process.
So without the mother the fetus has no chance to eventually become a human. What right does the fetus have to force a woman to risk their life for their well being? Where else in our laws on one person forced to risk their physical life to support another human?
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
One, the frozen embryo, was created on purpose to produce a life. The other was created by accident. It seems to me that if the accident is a life surely the purposely fertilized embryo is a life as well. Earlier in the thread you spoke against abortion in the case of rape or incest because "it's still a human protected by the constitution", why are the frozen embryos not "human?"

Not at all clear the embryo in the woman was “created by accident”. In many cases, two people are trying to create a person.

Again, this is messy and there is not an absolutely irrefutable case to be made either way on the frozen embryo. I have stated my reasoning for it earlier.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
So without the mother the fetus has no chance to eventually become a human. What right does the fetus have to force a woman to risk their life for their well being? Where else in our laws on one person forced to risk their physical life to support another human?

The woman, in most cases, chose the risk of bearing the child.

Now, with rape and incest, no. In that case, we the people have an obligation to protect the life of the most vulnerable.

Messy stuff.
 
Last edited:

IA_HAWKI

HR MVP
Dec 1, 2021
1,264
2,262
113
The woman, in most cases, chose the risk of bearing the child.

Now, with rape and incest, no. In that case, we the people have an issue bligstion to protect the life of the most vulnerable.

Messy stuff.
Do you support social services that help a mother who may not have family or financial resources to take care of a kid by providing paid maternity leave, healthcare and things like daycare so the mother can finish school or go to a job or you one of these “protect the most vulnerable only if they are inside the womb” people
 

gohawks50

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 28, 2010
8,459
14,139
113
Not at all clear the embryo in the woman was “created by accident”. In many cases, two people are trying to create a person.

Again, this is messy and there is not an absolutely irrefutable case to be made either way on the frozen embryo. I have stated my reasoning for it earlier.
When I said by accident I meant the women seeking an abortion were most likely not trying to create a person.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems to me your position on this issue is more about punishing those that were "sexually irresponsible" than believing an embryo is human therefore entitled to constitutional protection.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
Do you support social services that help a mother who may not have family or financial resources to take care of a kid by providing paid maternity leave, healthcare and things like daycare so the mother can finish school or go to a job or you one of these “protect the most vulnerable only if they are inside the womb” people

In general, yes. To an infinite degree by a country already $30 Trillion in debt, no.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems to me your position on this issue is more about punishing those that were "sexually irresponsible" than believing an embryo is human therefore entitled to constitutional protection.

You are incorrect here.

My motivation is entirely the latter.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

IA_HAWKI

HR MVP
Dec 1, 2021
1,264
2,262
113
Are you a “there are infinite resources” person?
Im a “bailout people, not corporations” person

i am a person who wonders why the people who cry “how are we going to pay for it” for anything that would benefit the american people never question how we are going to pay for spending when it comes to sending money to defense contractors and sending money to subsidize israels military while they give their citizens universal healthcare person.

and most importantly, i am a “not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if they are not mature enough, responsible enough and dont have a stabile home or financial life” person
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
33,741
19,050
113
The woman, in most cases, chose the risk of bearing the child.

Now, with rape and incest, no. In that case, we the people have an obligation to protect the life of the most vulnerable.

Messy stuff.
No. In many cases "the woman" did not choose the risk of bearing a child. She chose the risk of having sex. Which, at the crux, is what this is all about.

Are you against birth control too? If not, would you join a protest laws that limit birth control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
Im a “bailout people, not corporations” person

i am a person who wonders why the people who cry “how are we going to pay for it” for anything that would benefit the american people never question how we are going to pay for spending when it comes to sending money to defense contractors and sending money to subsidize israels military while they give their citizens universal healthcare person.

and most importantly, i am a “not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if they are not mature enough, responsible enough and dont have a stabile home or financial life” person

Too much generalization here.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IA_HAWKI

IA_HAWKI

HR MVP
Dec 1, 2021
1,264
2,262
113
Too much generalization here.
You mentioned protecting the vulnerable inside the womb and said that you dont support protecting the vulnerable outside the womb because of 30 trillion im debt.

i just mentioned a few of the things that we have no problem soending a ton of money on and it never gets questions on how it will be paid for like it does when it comes to helping people in our country.

so i will just chalk you down as one of those people who says “f**k you, youre on your own” when you want someone forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,473
113
You mentioned protecting the vulnerable inside the womb and said that you dont support protecting the vulnerable outside the womb because of 30 trillion im debt.

i just mentioned a few of the things that we have no problem soending a ton of money on and it never gets questions on how it will be paid for like it does when it comes to helping people in our country.

so i will just chalk you down as one of those people who says “f**k you, youre on your own” when you want someone forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
The “vulnerable” outside the womb who are indeed vulnerable are paid for by taxpayers. Section 8, food stamps, disability, Medicaid, and other local programs like food banks and churches fund them. It’s a myth that we just say fo to the poor in this country.
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,388
12,382
113
You mentioned protecting the vulnerable inside the womb and said that you dont support protecting the vulnerable outside the womb because of 30 trillion im debt.

I did not say that.

What I did say in regards to post-birth public support was, “In general, yes. To an infinite degree by a country already $30 Trillion in debt, no.”