Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Swalwell broke the witness' logic

They seem to not understand that a rape/medical exempt abortion is still an abortion. It doesn't cease being an abortion simply because it is exempt. You are still greenlighting an abortion.

Is this the only brain loophole through which some conservatives even tolerate a rape/medically exempt abortion? They think it isn't 'killing a baby' etc. because it was a rape/medical threat?

“Do you think a 10-year-old should choose to carry a baby?” Swalwell asked.

“I believe it would probably impact her life and so therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion,” Foster replied.

“Wait,” said Swalwell, who then paused as if to gather his thoughts on the answer. “It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old – with her parents – made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of rape?”

She answered, “If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion. So, it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

Swalwell turned to another witness, Sarah Warbelow of the pro-choice Human Rights Campaign.

“Ms. Warbelow, are you familiar with disinformation?” he asked.

“Yes, I am,” she responded.

“Did you just hear some disinformation?” he queried.

“Yes, I heard some very significant disinformation,” she stated. “An abortion is a procedure. It’s a medical procedure that individuals undergo for a wide range of circumstances including, because they have been sexually assaulted, raped in the case of the 10-year-old. It doesn’t matter whether or not there’s a statutory exemption. It is still a medical procedure that is understood to be an abortion. Beyond that, I think it’s also important to note that there is no exception for the life or the health of the mother in the Ohio law. That’s why that 10-year-old had to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion.”

This just helps highlight how silly the argument is. Even Tylenol is not 100% safe.

Yep.

I think the point being made here was the current assessment is that women's health outcomes and mortality rates fair out safer for abortions than pregnancies.

Yes I know about that. That isn't what you said he said, though.

I didn’t say Dawkins said anything. Here’s exactly what I said -

It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t though, because he’s an idiot.

If I’m being honest, I’m still not sure it wasn’t a deliberate presentation of a moral conundrum by a bad actor, knowing Richard wouldn’t be able to resist.

How is it being disingenuous to point out that when someone claims abortion is safe, to question their claim? Because that’s what I was doing, because the claim lacks specificity. Hell of a difference between an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and what’s commonly referred to as a “late term” abortion.

Obviously the first one, which is the vast majority of abortions, is safer. I’d still wonder why anyone would make the point when it’s clearly so obvious. Giving birth is also regarded as safe, and I’d question the lack of specificity were anyone to make that claim too, but it’s an entirely different set of circumstances, which is why I didn’t mention it. I don’t think of them as being comparable.

I kinda half wonder if some (and perhaps many) people actually don't understand the word, mixing the root abort up with abhor. Like, they see an abortion as akin to abhoration, thinking that it's a description of some vile act being named as such, where the specific act is intrinsically linked to the moral qualities of it - and thus, that a morally justified version by default can't be an abortion (abhoration).

The point couldn’t be simpler Christy - it’s a convenient and vague political slogan which hints at support for abortion rights. I could say I too want abortion to be safe, legal and rare… but we undoubtedly have very different ideas as to what we mean by that and how to go about achieving it. If I didn’t make you aware of that, I’d be knowingly misleading you into thinking we’re on the same page.

You can make a complaint afterwards when the outcome isn’t what you had in mind.

Where I was going is that these are all relative terms:

Safe - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

Legal - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

Rare - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

If I’m someone with ne’er an ounce of integrity, it’s the easiest way to gain your support and avoid any interrogation. If you ever change your mind after realising you’d been duped, you’ll be portrayed as a disgruntled ex-supporter.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to in accusing me of leaving out the facts that abortions were carried outside of proper facilities, because I remember referring to this case -

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/london-abortion-clinic-criticised-in-inquest-into-womans-death

I don’t imagine that because one woman died in those circumstances, it’s going to change anyone’s opinion on abortion, because they’re not actually concerned with women dying, they’re only using that obvious fact to argue that people need to support abortion to prevent women from dying. It’s a plausible argument, predicated upon the idea that we can’t change the factors which influence those outcomes.

I think we’re probably agreed earlier on in the thread though, that federal and state funding will not be made available to put structures in place to reduce the likelihood of poor outcomes, but it begins long before a woman ever finds herself in a situation where she wants an abortion with the intent that the foetus does not survive, regardless of how safe, legal or rare it is for anyone else.

Again you are being entirely misleading and disingenuous.

"It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins." very strongly implies that he said such a thing. Which he did not. He was asked a very specific question about a specific occurrence and gave an answer applicable to those circumstances. He never said abortion in those circumstances or any other was "the only reasonable conclusion". He said that in his view, in those circumstances, it was moral.

You also called one of the most respected scientists in the world "an idiot", talk about arrogant!

So we have misinformation, misrepresentation, disingenuity, and unbridled arrogance - sounds like the usual online pro-lifer alright.

You also called one of the most respected scientists in the world "an idiot", talk about arrogant!

Even if he were THE most respected scientist in the world, that still doesn’t preclude the assessment that he’s ALSO, an idiot. A person can have a brilliant mind and still walk themselves into “fireballs of hatred” on Twitter. Just because I think he’s an idiot, doesn’t mean I’m going to join anyone in mocking him, because I just feel it’s not right to make fun of idiots. You obviously feel differently about that 😂

Since when was calling someone an idiot not mocking them? Sheesh. Ask a mod if they think it's ok to call other posters idiots, because you claim it's not mocking them, and see how you get on.

Sometimes I wonder what sort of alternate reality pro-lifers live in.

There's no law in the EU paying you 10k to catch anyone who helps someone get an abortion . An Australian tourist was asked did she have an abortion she was travelling to the USA to house sit for a friend, abortion is legal in Australia, why are the customs asking foreign citizens about abortion? It seems now every woman who go, s to the USA is under suspicion . She was sent back to oz. Its illegal to work in America if you have a tourist visa . Maybe women should protest by not going to America as a tourist soend your money in a country that respects women's rights

I decided a long time ago I'll never visit the USA. I'm not a criminal and will not consent to being fingerprinted like a criminal.

It's nonsense but only because of the use of the word "god". US politics is nuts!