• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

Pogo

Well-Known Member
No… Amber had fetal tissue, the aftermath of an abortion in another state.

1) The hospital is at fault
2) She should have had a different type of abortion
3) If she did have the one she did have, she should have had a D&C
Wow can you say blame anybody else including the victim for the consequences of your wish to impose your religion on others.
No doubt many of these women are even Christians being the most common affiliation but then maybe they weren't "true Christians"

Your version of Christian love is disgusting.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
To be able to speak of abortion, one has to speak of sex too.
Otherwise the political debate sounds like these women get pregnant by the virtue of the Holy Spirit.
And if the holy spirit was involved the situation would still exist as even rape is insufficient justification after 6 weeks in some states and before only if you formally accuse the rapist.

what an overripe avocado.
 

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
We would have a different problem of human trafficking by way of trading in these "eggs." The individuals of this new class of slaves would never be missed, as they had no family to begin with.

You would probably have a greater chance of developing the ability of humans to lay eggs than you would have for developing technology to transfer a fetus from its host. (Messing with the placental interface means almost certain death for the fetus.) The egg laying technology would have to be installed before conception, or be a synthetic womb outside of the body implanted via IVF.

Neither of these would solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.
That's not the issue; the issue is that a woman who was trying to terminate a pregnancy died because of some technicality or conflict with the wording in a bill that was made into law, and the way to solve that problem is to fix the wording for the law by creating a new bill that fixes that and passing it into law.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
And if the holy spirit was involved the situation would still exist as even rape is insufficient justification after 6 weeks in some states and before only if you formally accuse the rapist.

what an overripe avocado.
So...out of 100 unwanted pregnancies, how many are the result of unprotected sex and how many are the result of rape.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

So, basically, this is fake news even as I pointed out in the beginning:​


From the site the OP:

"she had not expelled all of the fetal tissue from her body. “ Which means that she had already had the main parts already out of her body

So I dug a litte further and found:
What point are you trying to make here?

The main parts were out of her body, but there were parts remaining that caused her to become septic. Where's the "fake" part?

How was Thurman treated when she arrived at the hospital?​

American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs said, in reaction to the case, that “any first-year resident could make” the diagnosis that this was an infection due to an incomplete abortion, the standard of care for which is immediate antibiotics and a dilation and curettage, also known as a D&C.

A D&C involves dilating the patient’s cervix and surgically removing the retained products of conception by scraping the inside of the uterus. The process is used to treat both natural miscarriages and induced abortions.

But Thurman only received antibiotics three hours after presenting with infection symptoms and a D&C was not performed until approximately 20 hours after she arrived at the hospital in critical condition. She died on the operating table during the procedure.




So this is really about pushing an agenda with false information.

Understand. But I am just going the the opening OP which was a false narrative. I’m not addressing the nuances of particular laws. Obviously I am for circumstance that require the extraction of the baby. Example: an baby that attaches to a fallopian tube where both lives can be lost, a decision must be made to save the mother.

But this OP isn’t about that.



OK…


ok


ok

my point is simply that the OP is misleading and is a gaslighting effort to promote an agenda which, in this case, is to say that it was the law that caused it when it didn’t.
How about taking note of the REAL point: We all warned you people that this was going to happen to people when Roe v. Wade was overturned. We all warned you people that this was going to happen when Republican states started banning abortion and instituting abortion bans. We all warned you that inserting an ignorant politicians' personal opinions in between a woman and her doctor is going to get people hurt and killed and here it is. It's happening. And then we get someone like you coming along trying to tell us this is all just "gaslighting" and "fake news" and whatever other BS you have to tell yourself to make this work out inside your head. I've already pointed out to you before that this kind of thing is happening in Texas as well, and you tried to blow that off too.

Your position is not pro-life. These are the direct consequences of the policies that your position leads to. And the worst part is we all told you this was going to happen. Actually, what's worse than that, is that you still don't even seem to care that it is happening.

A woman has needlessly lost her life. Her son has lost his mother. But yay, pro-life wins out, right!?
This infuriates me to no end.


 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
One could also claim that stances on murder and stealing are very much driven by religion....
One could claim that.
But one would be wrong.
Survey atheists to see that they oppose murder & stealing too.

It's useful to recognize which values, prescriptions, & proscriptions
transcend religious orientation, & which don't. Ya canna reasonably
claim that all morality is from religion.
& that their imposition of their interpretation of the Bible drives opposition to murder and stealing, with Christian fundamentalism being the main driver. Should we throw out laws that make murder and stealing illegal?

To me it has to do with the question of the existence of a victim in a situation. Either all human beings have a right to not be victimized, or we have a problem in society like anarchy or the type of problem that exists when slavery is legal and slaves are considered property rather than human beings with a right to not be victimized.
Consider that so many anti-abortion types consider
the fetus a human being with the same full rights as
one born. They speak of a soul determining this.
That's a religious orientation.
 

Wirey

Fartist
Your question is confusing and perplexing, and I'm not sure what point you're driving at.
Allow me to elucidate. You're claiming laws against murder and theft are somehow linked to Christianity. They are not. Said laws existed during the reign of the world's first empire and it's emperor, Cyrus the Great of the Median Empire. Look him up, he was a pretty neat guy. Since Cyrus was a Zoroastrianist, if there's a religion that can claim credit for being responsibility for these laws. that would be the one. Ipso facto, since that religion is the one that established morality, Christianity is no longer required as we have a far superior substitute. See how that works?

Claiming Christianity is responsible for morality is like claiming fire is a cleaning product suitable for every home.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
That's not the issue; the issue is that a woman who was trying to terminate a pregnancy died because of some technicality or conflict with the wording in a bill that was made into law, and the way to solve that problem is to fix the wording for the law by creating a new bill that fixes that and passing it into law.
It is generally understood that if you knowingly or should have known that the product you create will result in loss of life or other severe injury, you are liable.
That is the discussion here.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
How about you go figure that out in the thread you started about it instead of here where the subject is something else.
The distinction is fundamental. Because a great start in the state of Georgia would be to allow abortion for all cases of rape and any kind of psychological violence.
That's a start.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
So...out of 100 unwanted pregnancies, how many are the result of unprotected sex and how many are the result of rape.
Way to avoid the substance of the situation my little italian avocado.

bigstock-222782935-768x576.jpg
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Your post made me wonder.....
What is the name for a Gish Gallop that has
only 1 or 2 deflective questions? It's not
really a "gallop". Hmmm......
I've got it!

Tuscan Trot
Why do Italians drink bottled water?


Italy ranks first in Europe and second in the world ranking of mineral water consumers. The fact is in Italy, tap water is not always drinkable: in many areas it's only used for washing things and washing youself, which is why we consume so many bottles of water.Jul 3, 2023
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Why do Italians drink bottled water?


Italy ranks first in Europe and second in the world ranking of mineral water consumers. The fact is in Italy, tap water is not always drinkable: in many areas it's only used for washing things and washing youself, which is why we consume so many bottles of water.Jul 3, 2023
In Rome it's drinkable.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
When the facts are in your favor, argue the law!
When the facts are against you, pound the table!

I assume there is an Italian equivalent for jurispuddingists.
Reminds me of advice a law professor once told me of....
If you're guilty, get a jury trial.
If you're innocent, get a bench trial.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Why do Italians drink bottled water?


Italy ranks first in Europe and second in the world ranking of mineral water consumers. The fact is in Italy, tap water is not always drinkable: in many areas it's only used for washing things and washing youself, which is why we consume so many bottles of water.Jul 3, 2023
To avoid the other kind of Tuscan Trot, eh.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The doctors were either not familiar with Georgia law:

If you’re past around 6 weeks pregnant, you may need to travel out of Georgia to get an abortion unless you qualify for an exception. Exceptions are very limited and include:

To save the pregnant person's life
To preserve the pregnant person's physical health
If the fetus is not expected to survive the pregnancy
If the pregnancy is a result of rape and/or incest.
The following video makes some good points about the logistics of getting one of these exceptions OK'ed. Apparently, it's not the doctor that decides when the life of the mother is at risk, at least not with legal impunity, as they were afraid to act.

Also, who says, "Yes, this was rape (or incest)" and grants the right to the procedure? Who do we suppose the states like Georgia that criminalize abortion (and now even a D and C) would empanel to make such judgments?

At 1:50, (the video runs 15 min 41 sec) Lawrence O'Donnell begins discussing the case of a girl who became pregnant at age 12 - apparently an actual case of a 12-year old raped by her stepfather that predated these new antiabortion laws, but in this context, it is a hypothetical 12-year old post-Dobbs in a state like Georgia - and why those legal exceptions in writing might not be enough to translate to action when action is needed:


The point is that these Christian theocrats are probably not really interested in any exception or the life of the mother. Individuals might vary, but collectively, when decisions are made, one shouldn't expect many if any compassionate exceptions. Notice that we haven't heard any expression of concern or regret coming from the right regarding the needless death in Georgia. Nobody in charge in these states with severe abortion restrictions seems to care that these laws are killing people. We haven't heard anything about reforming them from the people who created them and their allies.

In my opinion, O'Donnell is one of the better political commentators on mainstream media. He did another show on the story in the OP I believe the day before the video above outlining how George W. Bush and Trump filled the Court with theocrats, and now that they "got what they wanted," we see the fallout (19 min 12 sec):


I guess you shouldn't ride in a car in Georgia while pregnant, because if you get in an accident, the doctors won't be able to treat you.
A girl or woman shouldn't live in Georgia or any of the other theocratic states if she is fertile. It looks like there are 14 states with a total abortion ban (ID, ND, SD, OK, TX, MO, AK, LA, IN, KY, WV, TN, AL, MS) and 4 more where it's 6 weeks (IA, SC, GA, FL).

It looks like the so-called safe haven of NC where the girl in the OP was trying to get to is only slightly better:

"As of July 1, 2023, abortion in North Carolina is currently illegal after 12 weeks of pregnancy. In the case of rape or incest, abortion is legal through the 20th week of pregnancy."

1726756645071.png
 
Last edited:

Wirey

Fartist
So...out of 100 unwanted pregnancies, how many are the result of unprotected sex and how many are the result of rape.
Define rape. Define unwanted pregnancies. Is a wife who wants out of an abusive relationship but fears for her life a willing participant or a rape victim? Is a woman with a pre-existing medical condition that could lead to death during childbirth to be sacrificed at the Altar of Christian Morality because the QC inspector at Trojan missed one? This issue is soooo complex that it baffles comprehension, and solving it by claiming "An Invisible Sky Wizard knows" is borderline retarded.

A better plan is you mind your business, and I'll mind mine. If God wants to get even with me later, he can. If he needs you to do it, I have zero to worry about, because he's not really a god.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Define rape. Define unwanted pregnancies. Is a wife who wants out of an abusive relationship but fears for her life a willing participant or a rape victim? Is a woman with a pre-existing medical condition that could lead to death during childbirth to be sacrificed at the Altar of Christian Morality because the QC inspector at Trojan missed one? This issue is soooo complex that it baffles comprehension, and solving it by claiming "An Invisible Sky Wizard knows" is borderline retarded.
I said that if the state of Georgia makes abortion always legal in the case of rape, that's a great start for the rape victims.
It would be absolutely better than nothing.
A better plan is you mind your business, and I'll mind mine.
I live in a country...where there is no privacy. It's all public...even healthcare.

If God wants to get even with me later, he can. If he needs you to do it, I have zero to worry about, because he's not really a god.
I think little sacrifices are needed to live better.
If a woman wants to have unprotected sex because she only thinks of the maximization of pleasure, I cannot condone her choice.
 
Top