Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[seagypsy]

ETA: I should have put this in spoilers since it was merely a response to Bells' offtopic rambling about how abused she is.

Spoiler

However as a moderator, I am also within my rights to apply the standard you applied to me here and apply that to you.. For example, like when you posted links to your blogs and someone posted your photo from your links and commented on your appearance. If I were to follow your standards, I would not have acted against that individual and instead told you to suck it up because you posted the links to your blog and photos anyway. Thankfully for you, I do have empathy and I would never lower myself down to your pathetic levels..

Yeah, sure, I notice the guy wasn't banned. Also notice that I didn't post an official complaint about his behavior or the fact that he wasn't banned for it. I really wasn't too concerned bout it. It showed he was a bit mental. So what? I'm actually kinda glad it happened. I didn't realize how much of my personal information was on that blog and what was available to be seen, such as my real name. I don't care what strangers on this forum see really. but I do have an ex-husband out there who has kidnapped my son before and held him in Pakistan for nearly 3 years before I was able to recover him. So bringing to light what was easy to discern from my blog did me a huge favor in being able to hide from my ex-husband. Honestly, I owe the guy my gratitude for bringing it to light. Personally, i think you and Jame R over reacted in my particular case, but since you couldn't have known how I would actually feel, by terms of this forum you did what was necessary, considering that I have heard other members have been stalked and had their lives threatened on here.

It's also nice to see you reminding me of how much power you have over me as a moderator. That's not intimidation at all.


You know what though, you are right. What a fool I have been. What a terrible person I am. How can I not recognize the pain you have suffered in your life. Surely any decent person wouldn't dare expect you to be able to hold rational discussion and see the world objectively after the horrifying experiences you have suffered. Shame on me for expecting you to make sense. I will never make that mistake again. I promise, I won't. You poor poor thing, I am so SORRY.

 

[Balerion]

You tell me.. This is probably one of the worst of it:



This is after I and another person queried Asguard's assertions that he would pressure his girlfriend if she wanted to get an abortion so that she would do what he wanted her to do, after he brought up the issues around the fact that he had in the past, on several occasions, stated that he has threatened to leave his other half if she did not comply to his wishes as they try to conceive or the fact that he thinks if the father changes his mind, then he should not be made to pay child support. So I asked Asguard if he still controlled all that his girlfriend ingested, as he had advised on previous occasions that he did. This is an issue that Asguard and I have argued about for quite a bit over the years/months. This is between he and I and it was clearly so and advised by others to seagypsy and her husband.. seagypsy decided to enter into that conversation with the above, commenting on my marriage and asking me if I had decided to divorce him because he had decided to put his penis in an apparently more welcoming vagina than mine.. Because apparently my husband's penis and my vagina is something worth commenting on in such a fashion outside of any context of this thread? And then she later went on to mock my personal life.. She is, without a doubt, a gem..

And this is after her repeated accusation that I had used my hard life in this thread, when I had told her to stop and when initially challenged on the first time she made that accusation, she tried to deny it was aimed at me and that it was apparently a PM and then in the last few times she has gone after my supposed "hard life" and again accused me of using it in this thread to get away with whatever it is I am getting away with (I believe this was after Trippy and I caught her trying to lie about the studies she was posting and trying to pass them off as for third trimester abortions when they were actually studies for abortions after 16 weeks I believe).. So she instantly attacked my personal life again, repeatedly, and ignored all requests that she stop and without any proof whatsoever, again and repeatedly accused me of using my "hard life" in this thread to get away with what ever. Because heaven forbid she actually answer the charges made against her that she misrepresented studies in this thread and tried to pass them off as something they clearly were not.

Then amazingly enough, she tried to deny ever doing it. I shouldn't be surprised at someone who lied about the studies she was trying to pass through in this debate and who for the first 7 pages, abused me and others, compared one to a serial killer, raised the specter of child abuse in comparisons, because she didn't know what "personhood" meant in the context of this thread. So she can slander, insult, abuse, claim that women in the third trimester should not follow doctor's advice if they advise to abort because of the mother's health because hey, she got lucky and did not die when she did it (thereby opening herself and this site to possible legal action in the future), attack people's health and marriage and make comments on people's supposedly welcoming and less than welcoming vagina's because of why again? Oh yes, you just don't believe it happened because you haven't been following this thread and instead, prefer to just assume because of your personal feelings for me. How.. original of you Balerion.

But hey, god forbid you actually check before you just assume 'none of that happened'. Everyone else who was unfortunate enough to participate in this thread and read her vulgar displays are all wrong and you are right..

So she can try and portray herself as whatever. Her posts here, as well as her husband's and mine speak for themselves. And now she is trying to make sure her husband is excused for not only supporting her, but also for his trying to pass off those studies in this thread and his lies.

But hey, none of this happened because you, Balerion, says so..

I'm sorry, I don't see what Seagypsy did wrong. She disagrees with your assertion that Asgard is bullying, and points out your hypocrisy in the process. Where are the attacks on your health, your son, etc.? Or are those just as imaginary as this invisible slight is?

You know, for someone who says such obscenely personal things about others, you sure have some thin skin.

 

[Balerion]

You tell me..This is probably one of the worst of it:



This is after I and another person queried Asguard's assertions that he would pressure his girlfriend if she wanted to get an abortion so that she would do what he wanted her to do, after he brought up the issues around the fact that he had in the past, on several occasions, stated that he has threatened to leave his other half if she did not comply to his wishes as they try to conceive or the fact that he thinks if the father changes his mind, then he should not be made to pay child support. So I asked Asguard if he still controlled all that his girlfriend ingested, as he had advised on previous occasions that he did. This is an issue that Asguard and I have argued about for quite a bit over the years/months. This is between he and I and it was clearly so and advised by others to seagypsy and her husband.. seagypsy decided to enter into that conversation with the above, commenting on my marriage and asking me if I had decided to divorce him because he had decided to put his penis in an apparently more welcoming vagina than mine.. Because apparently my husband's penis and my vagina is something worth commenting on in such a fashion outside of any context of this thread? And then she later went on to mock my personal life.. She is, without a doubt, a gem..

And this is after her repeated accusation that I had used my hard life in this thread, when I had told her to stop and when initially challenged on the first time she made that accusation, she tried to deny it was aimed at me and that it was apparently a PM and then in the last few times she has gone after my supposed "hard life" and again accused me of using it in this thread to get away with whatever it is I am getting away with (I believe this was after Trippy and I caught her trying to lie about the studies she was posting and trying to pass them off as for third trimester abortions when they were actually studies for abortions after 16 weeks I believe).. So she instantly attacked my personal life again, repeatedly, and ignored all requests that she stop and without any proof whatsoever, again and repeatedly accused me of using my "hard life" in this thread to get away with what ever. Because heaven forbid she actually answer the charges made against her that she misrepresented studies in this thread and tried to pass them off as something they clearly were not.

Then amazingly enough, she tried to deny ever doing it. I shouldn't be surprised at someone who lied about the studies she was trying to pass through in this debate and who for the first 7 pages, abused me and others, compared one to a serial killer, raised the specter of child abuse in comparisons, because she didn't know what "personhood" meant in the context of this thread. So she can slander, insult, abuse, claim that women in the third trimester should not follow doctor's advice if they advise to abort because of the mother's health because hey, she got lucky and did not die when she did it (thereby opening herself and this site to possible legal action in the future), attack people's health and marriage and make comments on people's supposedly welcoming and less than welcoming vagina's because of why again? Oh yes, you just don't believe it happened because you haven't been following this thread and instead, prefer to just assume because of your personal feelings for me. How.. original of you Balerion.

But hey, god forbid you actually check before you just assume 'none of that happened'. Everyone else who was unfortunate enough to participate in this thread and read her vulgar displays are all wrong and you are right..

So she can try and portray herself as whatever. Her posts here, as well as her husband's and mine speak for themselves. And now she is trying to make sure her husband is excused for not only supporting her, but also for his trying to pass off those studies in this thread and his lies.

But hey, none of this happened because you, Balerion, says so..

I'm sorry, I don't see what seagypsy did wrong. She disagreed with your claim that Asgard was being a bully or controlling, and pointed out your hypocrisy in the process. That's the worst of it? Where are the attacks on your health and your son, etc.? Or are those just as imaginary as this one?

You know, for someone who makes such obscenely personal comments about other posters, you sure have thin skin.

At any rate, it's long past time that you gave up your mantle as a moderator. You are arguably the biggest flamer/insulter on this forum, you are constantly involved in these kinds of incidents, and while others suffer bans and infractions for far less, you remain unscathed. Enough is enough. Time to go.

 

[Neverfly]

At any rate, it's long past time that you gave up your mantle as a moderator. You are arguably the biggest flamer/insulter on this forum, you are constantly involved in these kinds of incidents, and while others suffer bans and infractions for far less, you remain unscathed. Enough is enough. Time to go.

Agreed. Very well put. oh... and very accurately put. Objectivity is important and someone that exaggerates to the point of absurdity is not objective at all. I really wish the Admin would examine the flaming and threats "I'm well within my rights to ban you for this and that" and personal attacks, rather than assuming that Mods must be Mods for a very good reason.

 

[Neverfly]

My honest opinion on all this is that this is a hot-button topic that anyone partaking in the discussion of should be ready to bear incredible scrutiny and some personal attacks. However, I also feel that the attacks in general have gone too far, all around. A return to simple fact-based debating is the outcome I desire.

This is true and fact is, almost everyone on this topic got out of hand.
Trippy, Bells, Physbang, seagypsy and myself.
However, all of the above mentioned appear to be trying very hard to keep it under control even if suffering moments of Letting Go.
Sticking to the facts isn't always so easy when trying to show that the facts must be valid and getting called a liar every single step of the way, which was utterly uncalled for.

sure, ....... by irrelevant examples of radical interpretations that stand outside already existing standard models of triage ... much like I can also show you similarly irrelevant radical interpretations of liquor licensing, prostitution, gambling, punitive punishment for crimes (and even the sale of eggs and milk) that in no way provide anything remotely substantial for the case of disbanding already existing regulatory bodies that govern these operations.

Just to make it clear, the real question which you don't address is the application of already existing models of triage to the situation of pregnancy.

The irony is that even the so called radical institutions address this point, while you fail to do so.

:shrug:

The examples Bells provided earlier rebutted your comparison to Triage. The catholic hospitals were not practicing Triage, they were instituting dogma.

The girl was emotionally blackmailed - emotionally abused, into terminating the pregnancy: "...after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy..."

I wonder if, given that she has seemingly waited until the third trimester to tell her boyfriend she's pregnant in the first place, she might actually have wanted to keep it.

You're applying a double standard here, where you're saying it's ok to kill another human brain because she was distraught- yet it if she had killed a 2 year old, would you give her that same credit? No, she'd go to prison. No judge would give her that credit even if you would. That is not how the standard works even if you wish to distort it as a political issue.

Think of the precedent you are trying to set.

 

[Neverfly]

Ooh, I've missed these threads.

Garbage, GeoffP.This ain't the theater. I have not enjoyed nor missed this kind of circus.

The bill is a terrifying prospect.

What they want is to deny women access to abortion, regardless of the reason. Because the premise behind such bills is to state that even from the point of where the sperm enters the egg, then that fertilised egg has gained equal and full legal rights and protection that everyone is granted.. Except if you are a woman of course..

Agreed. But this does not mean that we can consider woman as totalitarian and autonomous units, disregarding the point where another human is involved.

Long ago, I asked what the problem is and you never answered.

Bells, if woman only get third trimester abortions if it's medical- if the law enforces that- what is the problem? Why is it that you believe that she must have the right to "kill" regardless of the reasons, even if not medical?

 

[Neverfly]

This is very disturbing. And here is a primary problem of taking sides:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html

A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.

He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.

Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure, called intact dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain legal and ''partial-birth abortion'' by those who believe it should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights.

Mr. Fitzsmmons said that after that interview he stayed on the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing unease. As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common.

Sorry about the multiple posts- had to get caught up.

 

[wynn]

And as has been shown to you repeatedly, the mother's rights are being repeatedly veteod while pending medical issues for both the mother and child arise.

Actually, yes it does.

Granting personhood means that the foetus (while it is alive) has equal consideration to the mother in regards to its life and, as all laws states, it is against the law to end the life of a person.

Do you see how it would affect even triage situations?

Medical professionals who, in such a situation where the mother was dying, decided to end the life of the "person" she was carrying to save her, they could very well find themselves charged with murder. As per the OP, if a woman could be charged with a homicide for a miscarriage if she has done anything that may have contributed to it, what do you think would happen to medical professionals who actively seek to "end the life of the person" in utero?

People who are completely against abortion view it as a life from the moment the female egg is fertilised. To them, from that point, it is a person and they believe it should enjoy all the same protections that a "person" enjoys at law.

If an airplane crashes in bad weather, in a region that is difficult to access, and only a small rescue team is able to arrive at the site, while there are 300 injured passengers (who are all, obviously, granted personhood), and the rescue team perform triage, which may mean that some people are left to die -
- yes, there probably are people who would sue the rescue team for murder.

I suppose the family of a felon who was convicted with the death penalty and executed could sue the government for murder too.


It is because of fear of being sued that various institutions and companies instate policies that are intended to protect them against possible lawsuits, but tend to create very messy situations that are impossible to resolve and bring a lot of suffering to some, or all involved.


I think that your insistence on relegating an unborn to the status of tissue or at least non-personhood is fueled at least partly by this fear of being sued.
And this fear is apparently based on the total decontextualization of the situation in which the homicide occurred.


There is such a thing as non-culpable homicide. Google it, although as a lawyer, you should know about it.

 

[Bells]

Garbage, GeoffP.This ain't the theater. I have not enjoyed nor missed this kind of circus.

Agreed. But this does not mean that we can consider woman as totalitarian and autonomous units, disregarding the point where another human is involved.

Long ago, I asked what the problem is and you never answered.

Bells, if woman only get third trimester abortions if it's medical- if the law enforces that- what is the problem? Why is it that you believe that she must have the right to "kill" regardless of the reasons, even if not medical?

-_-

If they grant personhood to the foetus, then women will be denied third trimester abortions even if it is medical. Think about it, if they are denying abortions in the first and second trimester while she is miscarrying, what do you think they are going to do in the third trimester if she falls ill?

Granting personhood means that the unborn, regardless of which trimester it is in, will have equal rights and protection at law as the mother. What this does is it recognises the unborn as a person and if the mother falls ill, she will not be able to get an abortion if it is medically required as the doctors performing the abortion could find themselves charged with murder (since killing a person is deemed murder). What it also means is that if she does anything to endanger the foetus, such as wear heels, as one example, and she trips over and they decide that she would not have tripped if she wore flat shoes, or as Tiassa's examples point out in the OP, she could find herself charged as well if it results in a miscarriage.

In short, granting personhood means that the unborn has equal recognition and protection from harm from any source, be it the mother wearing heels and tripping over, for example, or the mother falling ill and being denied medical assistance if said assistance means terminating her pregnancy. We are already seeing that in hospitals run or owned by the Church. Now imagine that applying for the whole pregnancy everywhere, for all women. Read the Bill being proposed in Kansas, which would effectively make any abortion illegal. Or other bills and legislation proposals that were brought up in this thread, which states that life begins at the point of conception and personhood in this instance, would apply from then.

 

[wynn]

And as has been shown to you repeatedly, the mother's rights are being repeatedly veteod while pending medical issues for both the mother and child arise.

Actually, yes it does.

Granting personhood means that the foetus (while it is alive) has equal consideration to the mother in regards to its life and, as all laws states, it is against the law to end the life of a person.

Do you see how it would affect even triage situations?

Per your reasoning then, people involved in vehicular collisions, people who live or work in a building that has caught fire, airplane passengers etc. should be stripped of personhood too, and relegated to the status of "tissue,"
so that rescue teams, firefighters, airplane companies etc. don't find themselves sued for murder!


Ah, to hell with it, why not just strip everyone of personhood status, so that anyone can kill anyone and nobody gets sued!

 

[Bells]

If an airplane crashes in bad weather, in a region that is difficult to access, and only a small rescue team is able to arrive at the site, while there are 300 injured passengers (who are all, obviously, granted personhood), and the rescue team perform triage, which may mean that some people are left to die -
- yes, there probably are people who would sue the rescue team for murder.

I suppose the family of a felon who was convicted with the death penalty and executed could sue the government for murder too.


It is because of fear of being sued that various institutions and companies instate policies that are intended to protect them against possible lawsuits, but tend to create very messy situations that are impossible to resolve and bring a lot of suffering to some, or all involved.


I think that your insistence on relegating an unborn to the status of tissue or at least non-personhood is fueled at least partly by this fear of being sued.
And this fear is apparently based on the total decontextualization of the situation in which the homicide occurred.


There is such a thing as non-culpable homicide. Google it, although as a lawyer, you should know about it.

And if that applied in this instance, this thread would not exist.

However we are seeing, with clear evidence from hospitals that are administered by the Church, where women miscarrying are denied medical care if it means said care would result in terminating her pregnancy or 'ending life'.

So you can claim what you want about how it should be if they grant personhood, that is not what is actually happening.

At all.

It is not because doctors are afraid of being sued. It is because doctors face being charged with murder if they terminate a pregnancy, even if it saves the life of the mother.

So we can wax the lyrical about how it should be all we like, how it is absurd, etc.. And we can apply the standards you are attempting to apply.

What you cannot do is deny the fact that some hospitals are operating along the lines of granting personhood and it is a prime example of what would happen over all if all States approved of such forms of legislation.

 

[Neverfly]

However we are seeing, with clear evidence from hospitals that are administered by the Church, where women miscarrying are denied medical care if it means said care would result in terminating her pregnancy or 'ending life'.

Which is a problem. The problem is not with your attitude or with my attitude- but the extremist pro-lifer attitude.

If a doctor failed to save a woman's life, he'd get sued. If he intentionally causes harm, he would be prosecuted.

So why not do the same to that catholic priest that put people in harms way due to his extremist views? Instead of re-defining personhood in an arbitrary manner and pandering to him, keep the standard of personhood and hold him to the same standards as everyone else.

The precedent you set by defining personhood out of convenience and not holding the extremist accountable is more disturbing.

 

[wynn]

Which is a problem. The problem is not with your attitude or with my attitude- but the extremist pro-lifer attitude.

No. The problem is radical decontextualization.

What you cannot do is deny the fact that some hospitals are operating along the lines of granting personhood and it is a prime example of what would happen over all if all States approved of such forms of legislation.

And then there can be additional laws regulating non-culpable homicide, as is already done in other areas where issues of culpable and non-culpable homicide apply. Problem solved.

Your solution is just as short-sighted as the one you object to. It's as if neither you nor your opposition has much trust in the principles on which the legal system is built.

 

[seagypsy]

Ah, to hell with it, why not just strip everyone of personhood status, so that anyone can kill anyone and nobody gets sued!

I'd vote for that law, but then I am an oddity. I don't see life as a right. I see it as a privilege. I believe the concept of rights is a delusion. Nothing is really a right if someone else can take it from you. Maybe if we all treated our lives as privileges that others bestow upon us , knowing at any moment that privilege can be rescinded at any time for any reason, we may all be a little bit kinder to one another. Bearing in mind most humans do not enjoy killing but we may be motivated to kill someone who presents themselves as being of a particularly nasty personality type that no one would be upset over losing.

This is after all how our society really works. If enough people decide you are no longer "entitled" to your right to live, it is taken away. Only the state is usually the only one who can take it legally. But by way of vote, we as a society decide by consensus who shall have the privilege to live and who should not. Rights simply do not exist, IMO.

 

[Neverfly]

No. The problem is radical decontextualization.
And then there can be additional laws regulating non-culpable homicide, as is already done in other areas where issues of culpable and non-culpable homicide apply. Problem solved.

Your solution is just as short-sighted as the one you object to. It's as if neither you nor your opposition has much trust in the principles on which the legal system is built.

You will need to elaborate on this.
So that you make sense. Wherein lies the problem (I'm about to attack your character) with you constantly switching viewpoints in debates. One moment you're telling the theist where he's to get off and the next moment telling the atheist how wrong he is for telling the theist to get off. So frankly, you words carry little merit. Elaborate. Explain the reasoning.

Here's how I see it: Enforce the law.
If the law is that a woman may abort 1st, 2nd trimesters- then women have that right.
If the law says that 3rd trimester has established personhood, then the woman may not abort unless her life is in danger since the law currently supports people who kill another (Even full grown human) if their life is in danger.

If anyone disregards those laws, such as an extremist pro-lifer that disregards the personhood of the mother, they must be prosecuted under the law.

To set a precedent in which we allow the right to kill another human brain out of convenience smacks in the face of everything that our society has tried to lay down, stand for, uphold.

Everything I've said should satisfy Bells Criteria and my criteria and most reasonable persons criteria. The extremist viewpoints, pro-life or pro-choice are extremist- fringe- unworthy of speculation.

 

[seagypsy]

And if that applied in this instance, this thread would not exist.

However we are seeing, with clear evidence from hospitals that are administered by the Church, where women miscarrying are denied medical care if it means said care would result in terminating her pregnancy or 'ending life'.

So you can claim what you want about how it should be if they grant personhood, that is not what is actually happening.

At all.

It is not because doctors are afraid of being sued. It is because doctors face being charged with murder if they terminate a pregnancy, even if it saves the life of the mother.

So we can wax the lyrical about how it should be all we like, how it is absurd, etc.. And we can apply the standards you are attempting to apply.

What you cannot do is deny the fact that some hospitals are operating along the lines of granting personhood and it is a prime example of what would happen over all if all States approved of such forms of legislation.

Maybe the problem is that churches are allowed to administer hospitals. I don't see why religious extremists are allowed to sit in positions where they get to dictate who lives and dies. Perhaps health care should be taken away from the private sector.

 

[Neverfly]

Maybe the problem is that churches are allowed to administer hospitals. I don't see why religious extremists are allowed to sit in positions where they get to dictate who lives and dies. Perhaps health care should be taken away from the private sector.

Taking it away from the private sector would only wrap it up in red tape, bureaucracy etc. The more government run, the worse people get treated and the more paperwork must be done. I mean, think about it... Everytime you deal with a government agency, you have to jump through enough hoops to tire a seal, wait forever and hardly ever hear back from them without harassing them. When they do talk to you- they are rude and dismissive.

No, enforcing the law, even on priests, should be sufficient. Write-word the laws in the proper way, to protect the mother. Protect personhood.

 

[seagypsy]

Taking it away from the private sector would only wrap it up in red tape, bureaucracy etc. The more government run, the worse people get treated and the more paperwork must be done. I mean, think about it... Everytime you deal with a government agency, you have to jump through enough hoops to tire a seal, wait forever and hardly ever hear back from them without harassing them. When they do talk to you- they are rude and dismissive.

No, enforcing the law, even on priests, should be sufficient. Write-word the laws in the proper way, to protect the mother. Protect personhood.

I like wynn's idea better. No red tape. No waiting in line.

 

[Neverfly]

I'd vote for that law, but then I am an oddity. I don't see life as a right. I see it as a privilege. I believe the concept of rights is a delusion. Nothing is really a right if someone else can take it from you. Maybe if we all treated our lives as privileges that others bestow upon us , knowing at any moment that privilege can be rescinded at any time for any reason, we may all be a little bit kinder to one another. Bearing in mind most humans do not enjoy killing but we may be motivated to kill someone who presents themselves as being of a particularly nasty personality type that no one would be upset over losing.

This is after all how our society really works. If enough people decide you are no longer "entitled" to your right to live, it is taken away. Only the state is usually the only one who can take it legally. But by way of vote, we as a society decide by consensus who shall have the privilege to live and who should not. Rights simply do not exist, IMO.

Our modern society disagrees with this.

I don't though and while I see no need to advocate it, here, as it would do no good in this thread. In the end, it's the only real way to go and only true to our nature, which our current society resists hands down resulting in such current insane dilemmas.
Our modern society makes no sense at all and here is one consequence of our resistance, which is almost religious in its determination.

Then again, I'm a bit apocalyptic.

 

[Bells]

Which is a problem. The problem is not with your attitude or with my attitude- but the extremist pro-lifer attitude.

If a doctor failed to save a woman's life, he'd get sued. If he intentionally causes harm, he would be prosecuted.

So why not do the same to that catholic priest that put people in harms way due to his extremist views? Instead of re-defining personhood in an arbitrary manner and pandering to him, keep the standard of personhood and hold him to the same standards as everyone else.

The precedent you set by defining personhood out of convenience and not holding the extremist accountable is more disturbing.

What we know from the studies presented for third trimester abortions is that all of them have what you would deem a valid reason, ie, women aren't just changing their minds and getting an about having a child in the third trimester and deciding to abort. In other words, women are not aborting for convenience in the third trimester, but for actual valid reasons in the context of this thread. So I think denying women even medically necessary abortions is towing a very very fine line. Looking at the Catholic administered hospitals which were detailed in the links of that report I provided earlier, women are ending up in intensive care and nearly dying because doctors are being ordered to wait or are scared to act to save the mother. Look at the case where the pregnancy was actually in the vagina. The woman went septic and nearly died and the doctor who ended up treating her had to cut the umbilical cord when no one was looking so that he could treat her, as that meant the foetal heartbeat had stopped. That is, to me personally, an appalling situation. The mother was near death at that point and had he not taken those steps, she would probably have died. Regardless of the trimester, no person should ever be placed in that type of situation deliberately.

The scary thing is, of course, is that the Church is buying up the management of more and more hospitals across the world.

And freedom of religion. If you forced a priest to adopt a standard that contradicted with their religious teachings, then you would be infringing on his rights to his beliefs.