If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

Elixir said:

Forgiveable.
There must exist somewhere, a compilation of reasons given for abortions performed after 24 weeks... and I doubt that it consists of much more than lethal fetal abnormalities and threats to the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Loren Pechtel said:

Elixir said:

Forgiveable.
There must exist somewhere, a compilation of reasons given for abortions performed after 24 weeks... and I doubt that it consists of much more than lethal fetal abnormalities and threats to the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Both of these are too restrictive.

I have a niece that had an abortion in the 5th month--she was not realistically in danger of death. She was in danger of blindness and the treatment would do bad things to the fetus. Thus abort/treat/try again.

Click to expand...

Elixir said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Elixir said:

Forgiveable.
There must exist somewhere, a compilation of reasons given for abortions performed after 24 weeks... and I doubt that it consists of much more than lethal fetal abnormalities and threats to the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Both of these are too restrictive.

I have a niece that had an abortion in the 5th month--she was not realistically in danger of death. She was in danger of blindness and the treatment would do bad things to the fetus. Thus abort/treat/try again.

Click to expand...

When was that and in what State?

Click to expand...

Loren Pechtel said:

I do not recall the year beyond that it was many years ago. No state.

Click to expand...

Bronzeage said:

excreationist said:

That's what Elon Musk says. I tend to agree with him.

Click to expand...

Abortion of babies which can survive outside the womb is something which doesn't actually exist. Late term abortion is necessary when the fetus cannot survive until term and will become necrotic, become gangrenous, which will kill the mother in a fairly short time.

The late term abortion controversy is a classic strawman argument.

Click to expand...

TomC said:

Loren Pechtel said:

I do not recall the year beyond that it was many years ago. No state.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter.
For decades after the 1973 RvW decision, patients and their medical care staff decided what to do. That was just that.

Now we have a bunch of idiots in state government practicing medicine without a license, chasing political power and wealth in a "Crueler than Thou" competition.

I'm no fan of casual abortion but the shit show going on in the USA right now is an abomination!
Tom

Click to expand...

Loren Pechtel said:

TomC said:

Loren Pechtel said:

I do not recall the year beyond that it was many years ago. No state.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter.
For decades after the 1973 RvW decision, patients and their medical care staff decided what to do. That was just that.

Now we have a bunch of idiots in state government practicing medicine without a license, chasing political power and wealth in a "Crueler than Thou" competition.

I'm no fan of casual abortion but the shit show going on in the USA right now is an abomination!
Tom

Click to expand...

"No state" meant that it wasn't in a state. This happened in Shanghai. Over there they're call provinces rather that states but Shanghai is a special case and isn't in a province.

Click to expand...

Shadowy Man said:

I have worked for companies that do a lot of business with the government and there are a lot of regulations to deal with. He just doesn’t want to do that. So, he just simply lied on the job ads? Is that the right approach? How many asylees and refugees were even applying for Space-X jobs? How many would have had the qualifications to work for an aerospace company? It seems he was complaining about an imaginary problem. I don’t know.

If he doesn’t like the laws in this country he is able to stop doing business with the government, move to another country or, as is the American way, pay for enough politicians to get into office to rewrite the laws. Perhaps that’s why he is backing Republicans so much and (likely illegally) paying voters to register.

“Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.”

That’s just whining, not an actual logical argument. Yes, there are laws you have to follow even if you don’t personally want to, or think your simply smarter than those who wrote the laws.

Click to expand...

doj I mean the doj is you know been
attacking SpaceX for example for not
hiring Asylum Seekers even though it is
legal for SpaceX to hire anyone who is
not a a permanent resident of the US so
we're downed if we do and downed if we
don't there an examp just an example of
what drj can do so it's illegal to hire
someone who's not an American citizen
well SpaceX uh is considered an an
advanced weapons technology so it's it's
covered by International traffic and
arms regulations because we make rocket
technology that can be used against the
United States if North North Korea or
Iran got SpaceX rocket technology they
could use that to launch nukes at
America right that would be bad yeah
that' be really bad that would be really
bad so since we are in like the most
extreme category of weapons technology
at SpaceX under us itar law it is
illegal for us to hire anyone who's not
a permanent resident because the
presumption is that if they're not a
permanent resident they're going to
return to their home country and take
the rocket technology with them so
that's and so it's illegal for us to
hire anyone who's not either has not a
they can they can be have a green card
or be a citizen they just have to be a
permanent resident of the United States
then there's another law that says if
you if you discriminate against Asylum
Seekers that's also you're also breaking
the law so that the drj which the DJ DJ
can only do a small number of big
lawsuits every year launch a giant
lawsuit against SpaceX saying that
SpaceX discriminated against Asylum
Seekers and we're like but we're like
but it's illegal for us to hire anyone
who's not a permanent resident so we're
in this this what I mean o well the O
well situation is getting insane you're
damned if you do and you're damned if
you don't so you're damned

Click to expand...

excreationist said:

Shadowy Man said:

I have worked for companies that do a lot of business with the government and there are a lot of regulations to deal with. He just doesn’t want to do that. So, he just simply lied on the job ads? Is that the right approach? How many asylees and refugees were even applying for Space-X jobs? How many would have had the qualifications to work for an aerospace company? It seems he was complaining about an imaginary problem. I don’t know.

If he doesn’t like the laws in this country he is able to stop doing business with the government, move to another country or, as is the American way, pay for enough politicians to get into office to rewrite the laws. Perhaps that’s why he is backing Republicans so much and (likely illegally) paying voters to register.

“Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.”

That’s just whining, not an actual logical argument. Yes, there are laws you have to follow even if you don’t personally want to, or think your simply smarter than those who wrote the laws.

Click to expand...

Maybe this will clarify what he means:



5:12

doj I mean the doj is you know been
attacking SpaceX for example for not
hiring Asylum Seekers even though it is
legal for SpaceX to hire anyone who is
not a a permanent resident of the US so
we're downed if we do and downed if we
don't there an examp just an example of
what drj can do so it's illegal to hire
someone who's not an American citizen
well SpaceX uh is considered an an
advanced weapons technology so it's it's
covered by International traffic and
arms regulations because we make rocket
technology that can be used against the
United States if North North Korea or
Iran got SpaceX rocket technology they
could use that to launch nukes at
America right that would be bad yeah
that' be really bad that would be really
bad so since we are in like the most
extreme category of weapons technology
at SpaceX under us itar law it is
illegal for us to hire anyone who's not
a permanent resident because the
presumption is that if they're not a
permanent resident they're going to
return to their home country and take
the rocket technology with them so
that's and so it's illegal for us to
hire anyone who's not either has not a
they can they can be have a green card
or be a citizen they just have to be a
permanent resident of the United States
then there's another law that says if
you if you discriminate against Asylum
Seekers that's also you're also breaking
the law so that the drj which the DJ DJ
can only do a small number of big
lawsuits every year launch a giant
lawsuit against SpaceX saying that
SpaceX discriminated against Asylum
Seekers and we're like but we're like
but it's illegal for us to hire anyone
who's not a permanent resident so we're
in this this what I mean o well the O
well situation is getting insane you're
damned if you do and you're damned if
you don't so you're damned

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TomC said:

Loren Pechtel said:

TomC said:

Loren Pechtel said:

I do not recall the year beyond that it was many years ago. No state.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter.
For decades after the 1973 RvW decision, patients and their medical care staff decided what to do. That was just that.

Now we have a bunch of idiots in state government practicing medicine without a license, chasing political power and wealth in a "Crueler than Thou" competition.

I'm no fan of casual abortion but the shit show going on in the USA right now is an abomination!
Tom

Click to expand...

"No state" meant that it wasn't in a state. This happened in Shanghai. Over there they're call provinces rather that states but Shanghai is a special case and isn't in a province.

Click to expand...

It would have been helpful if you'd mentioned that your post had nothing to do with the USA.
Tom

Click to expand...

Shadowy Man said:

Yes, I know what Musk has said but he’s not telling the truth. That’s why he was sued, for lying to prospective employees about it.

If you can find me an unbiased source of a legal analysis that agrees with Musk I would gladly read it.

Click to expand...

“They could use that to launch nukes at America” - Elon Musk gets brutally honest with Joe Rogan about irony of Justice Department “attacking” Space X

Elon Musk recently spoke to Joe Rogan about how his organization, SpaceX, being trapped in a troublesome situation due to the Justice Department's tyranny. The 53-year-old appeared on the episode no.

www.sportskeeda.com

Musk mentioned that his organization was covered by International Traffic in Arms Regulations due to its capacity to manufacture rockets, which can be a huge threat to the US if it goes into the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

excreationist said:

Shadowy Man said:

Yes, I know what Musk has said but he’s not telling the truth. That’s why he was sued, for lying to prospective employees about it.

If you can find me an unbiased source of a legal analysis that agrees with Musk I would gladly read it.

Click to expand...

“They could use that to launch nukes at America” - Elon Musk gets brutally honest with Joe Rogan about irony of Justice Department “attacking” Space X

Elon Musk recently spoke to Joe Rogan about how his organization, SpaceX, being trapped in a troublesome situation due to the Justice Department's tyranny. The 53-year-old appeared on the episode no.

www.sportskeeda.com

Musk mentioned that his organization was covered by International Traffic in Arms Regulations due to its capacity to manufacture rockets, which can be a huge threat to the US if it goes into the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

BTW I looked on snopes.com for spacex. It gave 307 results but when I tried narrower searches it didn't seem to have any relevant results.

Do you have evidence that Musk's lied when he claimed that SpaceX "is considered an advanced weapons technology so it's it's covered by International traffic and arms regulations"? That is the first part - then the next part is that that means that only certain kinds of people can be hired.

Click to expand...

Shadowy Man said:

excreationist said:

BTW I looked on snopes.com for spacex. It gave 307 results but when I tried narrower searches it didn't seem to have any relevant results.

Do you have evidence that Musk's lied when he claimed that SpaceX "is considered an advanced weapons technology so it's it's covered by International traffic and arms regulations"? That is the first part - then the next part is that that means that only certain kinds of people can be hired.

Click to expand...

The best lies have kernels of truth in them.

It’s the second part that is misleading. He’s mixing concepts to reach a false conclusion. Yes, some of what he does is covered by ITAR rules. These limit exposure to “US Persons”, which by definition includes refugees and asylees, not just citizens and permanent residents.

I will no longer try to spoon feed you the answer here. It was easy to research on my own and so you can too. Don’t just listen to his side of the story. Find a reliable source for actual facts on this case.

Click to expand...

Spacex Articles | Snopes.com

The definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.

www.snopes.com

Loren Pechtel said:

The point is there are medical reasons for abortion that aren't a threat to her life.

Click to expand...

Shadowy Man said:

Are you not reading my posts? Go look at #43.

Click to expand...

excreationist said:

Shadowy Man said:

Are you not reading my posts? Go look at #43.

Click to expand...

Yeah I had a feeling you did somewhere (so I said "(if you haven't already)"). I'll assume that you're right about Musk being misleading. Thanks for that lengthy post.

Click to expand...

excreationist said:

Elixir said:

Murdering babies is illegal. Abortions done at or after an indeterminate “point of viability” were illegal even under RvW.
But… who were you planning to charge with murder? The Mom? The dad?
The Obgyn? The primary Doc? All of the above as conspirators to murder and/or accessories to murder? Death to all!
Stupid idea.

Laws don’t solve nonexistent problems anyhow.

Click to expand...

I didn't consider "murder" requiring a guilty party just that it seems the killing is somewhat unethical. Elon Musk was saying an alternative would be to adopt out the baby. I'm just unsure whether the killing is ethical when it is just a matter of the pregnancy being an inconvenience (and it isn't a case of rape or incest, etc).

Click to expand...

excreationist said:

I'm just unsure whether the killing is ethical when it is just a matter of the pregnancy being an inconvenience (and it isn't a case of rape or incest, etc).

Click to expand...