Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

The second quote dances around the "apparent" confusion of an instrument and its purpose, and when a procedure is "not considered an abortion". The source, particularly when applied to Ms Thurman, is flawed since it makes no attempt to address or discuss the details of the law including

(1) LIfe and physical health exemptions for the mother, regardless of the age of the fetus AND
(2) Reasonable medical judgement

This is the case in both Georgia and North Carolina, hence why I support the first source and not the second source you quoted, for the reasons I gave in comment #198.

Yeah, we don't agree. Now unless you can actually show that you are a relevant person for the actual legal process, I consider that we hold different individual personal subjective opinions.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, we don't agree. Now unless you can actually show that you are a relevant person for the actual legal process, I consider that we hold different individual personal subjective opinions.

That's a shame, I actually expected more from you.

Perhaps another will accept the challenge of explaining the "subjectivity" of the lack of information in a source, without the request to provide "qualifying" personal information.

Thanks for the discussion nevertheless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a shame, I actually expected more from you.

Perhaps another will accept the challenge of explaining the "subjectivity" of the lack of information in a source, without the request to provide "qualifying" personal information.

Thanks for the discussion nevertheless.

Well, to understand that something is subjective, you have to subjectively understand it as subjective. Not all people can do that in all cases.

So in effect, I subjectively admit that it is subjective in regards to the sources for how I subjectively understand their respective bias and subjectively rate their claims.
And if you want to claim that you are objective in your process, you can do so. I am still subjective in how I rate it as it is about how I trust other humans for how they make claims.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well, to understand that something is subjective, you have to subjectively understand it as subjective. Not all people can do that in all cases.

So in effect, I subjectively admit that it is subjective in regards to the sources for how I subjectively understand their respective bias and subjectively rate their claims.
And if you want to claim that you are objective in your process, you can do so. I am still subjective in how I rate it as it is about how I trust other humans for how they make claims.

Here is what I mean by objectivity.

The first source provides a source within it that refers to abortion laws within each state in the US, correct as of 29th July 2024. I agree with this source's (below) claim to be independant, since it is giving factual information, and not any opinion regarding the laws.

Abortion Gestational Limits and Exceptions | KFF

www.kff.org

Now if you attempt to search the words "exempt", "exemption", "reasonable", and "judgement" in the source you support, all come back as zero instances of those words being used.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here is what I mean by objectivity.

The first source provides a source within it that refers to abortion laws within each state in the US, correct as of 29th July 2024. I agree with this source's (below) claim to be independant, since it is giving factual information, and not any opinion regarding the laws.

Abortion Gestational Limits and Exceptions | KFF

www.kff.org

Now if you attempt to search the words "exempt", "exemption", "reasonable", and "judgement" in the source you support, all come back as zero instances of those words being used.

Correct, but it doesn't address the relevance to the second quote:
The first quote:
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."
The second one:
"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

So since her abortion is not covered as a spontaneous miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, the first quote doesn't apply. And the second one raises doubt about what the doctors can do.

 

[GoodAttention]

Correct, but it doesn't address the relevance to the second quote:
The first quote:
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."

Sure.

However this one quote of the souce establishes first that there are, in fact, scenarios where such a procedure can be considered. Here are other pertinent quotes relating to the "institute" mentioned.

(1b) “All pro-life state laws allow doctors to exercise their medical judgment to treat women with pregnancy emergencies. No law requires ‘imminence’ or ‘certainty’ before a doctor can act to save the patient’s life,” read the Sept. 13 Charlotte Lozier Institute fact sheet by Tess Cox, Dr. Ingrid Skop and Mary Harned.

The second one:
"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

The second source does quote this, but also fails to discuss exemptions, which I have mentioned.

So since her abortion is not covered as a spontaneous miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, the first quote doesn't apply.

Correct it doesn't. However, I can add a third and fourth quote from the first source

(1c) There were also no fetal heartbeats detected in the 9-week-old unborn twins, meaning it would not have been an abortion.

(1d) “Amber Thurman’s (State of Georgia) clearly allows physicians to intervene in medical emergencies or when there is no detectable fetal heartbeat, both of which applied to her,” Francis said. “Don’t be misled by those who advocate for induced abortion over the health and safety of women.”

As I note previously, I see no difference between the North Carolina and Georgia state laws in Amber Thurman's case.

And the second one raises doubt about what the doctors can do.

I disagree. The second source, in my subjective opinion, is garbage.

It barely discusses the law that applies in this circumstance, does not qualify how "doubt" is assessed, and most importantly, what the exemptions could be. The source attempts to portray a "fearful" medical profession, in the context of a procedure that was considered but not performed. It attempts to put the spotlight on litigation, and what a jury could think, and not what is considered reasonable medical judgement.

Let is be known I am pro-choice, BUT the law is clear. This is medical negligence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure.

However this one quote of the souce establishes first that there are, in fact, scenarios where such a procedure can be considered. Here are other pertinent quotes relating to the "institute" mentioned.

(1b) “All pro-life state laws allow doctors to exercise their medical judgment to treat women with pregnancy emergencies. No law requires ‘imminence’ or ‘certainty’ before a doctor can act to save the patient’s life,” read the Sept. 13 Charlotte Lozier Institute fact sheet by Tess Cox, Dr. Ingrid Skop and Mary Harned.



The second source does quote this, but also fails to discuss exemptions, which I have mentioned.



Correct it doesn't. However, I can add a third and fourth quote from the first source

(1c) There were also no fetal heartbeats detected in the 9-week-old unborn twins, meaning it would not have been an abortion.

(1d) “Amber Thurman’s (State of Georgia) clearly allows physicians to intervene in medical emergencies or when there is no detectable fetal heartbeat, both of which applied to her,” Francis said. “Don’t be misled by those who advocate for induced abortion over the health and safety of women.”

As I note previously, I see no difference between the North Carolina and Georgia state laws in Amber Thurman's case.



I disagree. The second source, in my subjective opinion, is garbage.

It barely discusses the law that applies in this circumstance, does not qualify how "doubt" is assessed, and most importantly, what the exemptions could be. The source attempts to portray a "fearful" medical profession, in the context of a procedure that was considered but not performed. It attempts to put the spotlight on litigation, and what a jury could think, and not what is considered reasonable medical judgement.

Let is be known I am pro-choice, BUT the law is clear. This is medical negligence.

Yeah, let us stop here. You trust the sources differently than me. That is where it ends.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, let us stop here. You trust the sources differently than me. That is where it ends.

I will always trust the source that is more objective, and between one which quotes the law and named medical practitioners, versus the other which is written by a journalist who quotes no-one specific except herself, I will go with the former every day of the week.

Thanks again.

 

[crossfire]

What is critical reading or applied skepticism to you?

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

In the National Catholic Register article you linked I found this:
"Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and a board-certified OB-GYN who has practiced for two decades, said that Thurman’s death “was caused by legal abortion drugs” as well as medical negligence."
"In Francis’ opinion, it was the doctors’ negligence and the abortion-pill complications that killed Thurman — not the state’s pro-life laws, which allow abortions and other lifesaving medical procedures in cases where the woman’s physical health or life is at risk."
Further there is this claim from this source: About Lozier Institute - Lozier Institute
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."

So how do you rate the bias of the article you linked and the relevance of the opinions given?

If she was able to get the D&C she was seeking in the first place, she wouldn't have died.