2 years ago, browbeaten by the local RCC our spineless politicians added a complete ban to abortion to the constitution. And while abortion was never legal at least before it made allowances for cases in which the health of the mother was in grave danger. Mind you, that never stopped anyone from procuring abortions, only now, if your case cannot be handled discreetly by your doctor things get dicey.
Now a young girl’s life (link to BBC video) will be sacrificed on the altar of moronic beliefs from stone age peasants. The only reason she is in danger from not terminating the pregnancy is because her parents can’t afford to whisk her away from the country to some less backward spot on the planet. The law, once again, only applies to the poor.
Ugh…that’s disgusting. That attitude its a major reason why I’ve given up on religion in general…women are not disposable, subservient little morons, dammit.
I agree with the OP. That said, if they (the government) wants to be entirely consistent with their constitution, there’s no way they should allow a treatment that will kill the fetus, which has just as much right to life as the girl. The “fair” thing is to not allow treatment until the girl delivers, at which point there will be a live girl and a live baby. Then they can start treatment and watch it fail and watch the girl die.
Their constitution has to change. Talk about “death panels”…
She’s screwed. There is zero to no chance that she will be able to leave the country for an abortion and/or treatment even if her parents were to come to a lot of money. The same thing that is trying to save her (publicity for her case) might also kill her.
Just because you believe that doesn’t make it a fact. And it’s assholish to state that non-viable parasite has more right to life than an actual living person. Particularly when the parasite is going to die when the actual person dies.
He did say “according to their constitution”. I mean I saw nowhere in his post at all that he is in favor of it. At all. He even flatly said “Their constitution has to change”.
You jumped the gun on this one a LOT.
God, he even said “I agree with the OP”!
ETA: He put “fair” in quotes, people! Unless I am the one totally in the wrong here…
No I didn’t, ad no I don’t. But that is the case according to the Dominican constitution, which is so badly written it needs to be eliminated or removed.
The OP clearly understood the meaning of my post, and you didn’t. Why is that?
That’s the problem with devil’s advocacy. People think that just because you argue a point/demonstrate understanding of a point then you must automatically support it.
…and so we stray away from the OP’s point: zero-tolerance legislation is bad.
I didn’t read it that way at all. I think Boyo Jim’s meaning was clear enough. In that sentence he was stating the government’s position and taking it to its logical conclusion re the fetus.
I am reminded of the time on a train when a Mormon evangelist girl heard the term “Devil’s Advocate” for the first time, and thought the man she was talking to was actually speaking on behalf of an unavoidably detained Satan.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with everything that you believe in doesn’t make them stupid. Someday you’ll be smart enough to understand that.
He is now saying that he doesn’t think a fetus has more right to life than a real person, so it does look like I jumped the gun, but not a lot. The way it was worded made it sound like (and not just to me) that he is anti-abortion even if the woman is going to die.
The point of the OP seemed to be that the laws only apply to the poor, not whether or not a fetus has more rights to life.
This was another reason why his post appeared to be anti-abortion, in that he seemed to be agreeing with waiting until the girl had the baby, then give her treatment. The OP seemed to think this too, give her response.
If Boyo is pro-choice, that post was very unclear. Instead of clarifying, he acted more the asshole. I doubt I need to apologize but if he didn’t mean what that post seemed to say, I do apologize for the misunderstanding.
Everybody got it but you.
The OP said that the law only applies to the poor because they can’t afford to get around it.
Which is, of course, the point of the thread. Extremes in the law are pretty much always a bad idea, and this one disproportionately affects the poor. In this case it seems that, in trying to save one life, they’re willing to lose two.
Learn to read and stop bitching. I just scanned the thread, and I understood his meaning with out trouble. Maybe some day you will be smart enough to understand fucking words.
