Purvi Patel was given a 30 year sentence for ordering and taking abortion pills. It was ultimately overturned.
Anna Yocca Was charged with attempted murder for trying to use a coat hammer on herself. She pled not guilty to aggravated assault.
Those are pretty recent though, so don’t fall under " back when abortion was illegal."
Eta actually Anna was charged with 3 felonies- including " attempting to procure a miscarriage. "
You quoted me saying:
In what way do you believe this question of yours follows from what I wrote?
In each of these cases, the actus reus was manifestly deliberate and arguably dangerous to the life of the mother (to say nothing of the unborn child). And they existed under the current legal framework in which abortion is legal.
How are they relevant to the issue?
I’m asking you to speculate on the hypothetical. Should a sperm donor or birthparent be required to give up an organ to save their child’s life - because they “begat” the child? Your argument was that a parent has additional responsibilities a stranger does not have. And your definition of parent, in response to Kimstu, was “one that begets or brings forth offspring” I’m asking how far that extends.
There are laws on the books now that allow the prosecution of women who “attempt to procure a miscarriage.” if roe v wade is overturned, do you believe women would not prosecuted under those and similar laws?
Read “Intern” by Doctor X. Some doctors lost their hospital privileges for treating “suspected abortions” and not turning the women over to the police. And Paul Sloan’s excellent book “Choices” tells how Dr. Sloan an ob/gyn, started doing illegal abortions after seeing the results of non-physicians doing them. When women were doing their own abortions by douching with LYSOL.
According to the anti-abortion crowd, no women ever died from an abortion until they were made illegal, and they all lead to death and/or sterility. And some women even have 20 of them.
And the Catholic Church did excommunicate a women who allowed an abortion for her nine year old carrying twins, and the doctor who performed the medical procedure to save the child’s life. But not the man who raped her.
This is a lawmaker who believes women should serve jail time for getting an abortion.
Well, shouldn’t the “fathers” go to jail too? After all, she did not get pregnant by herself.
I image that, in this anti-abortion world, any gay person who gets or causes a pregnancy will be forced to give up the child, as gay parenting is often considered “child abuse.” Since children need “a mother and a father” we’ll be back to the age where unwed mothers will be forced to give up their children “for the good of the child.”
AGAIN I ask: if you tell the story of your discussion with a Catholic pro-life advocate about “being thrown out of the church,” will you also include my reaction to your story?
You seem to be repeating what you have said without acknowledging what I have said.
If you don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant. Simple.
All those women were just asking to be raped, right? Or do women just have a way to shut that whole thing down?
I’m switching topics - as is a woman’s prerogative. Would you like to answer the question currently on the table.
And if you don’t want to raise a baby, keep it in your pants. Simple.
That’s not a privilege of debate. The gender of the rhetor does not confer any particular advantage. Can I nullify this rule by substituting my wife, who is also pro-life, as the main rhetor on my side?
Notwithstanding and subject to my objection that there is no “woman’s perogative,” in debate . . . OK.
I’d say that it depends on the need. As I mentioned earlier, we don’t have a law for this because the situation arises so rarely. That is, I don’t remember ever hearing of a case where a child had a matching donor parent, needed the organ, and the parent was unwilling.
But it certainly seems to me like the right thing for that parent to do.
There may be some consequence here I am not thinking of, but my initial reaction is that I’d be supportive of such a law if the need became more common.
Sorry man,I was understanding of your POV up to this point, but didn’t necessarily agree.
But come on! You would be supportive of a law that forced people to give up their organs?
I think the context here is not generic “organs.” The examples raised above were a kidney, which we have in duplicate, and liver, which can be done in portions because the liver grows back. And the further context was that the parent is a match and that another willing donor is not available, AND that the situation became common enough that it was an every day event.
But I could be missing something – as I said. Talk me out of it.
Once again, let me highlight that my main point was: animus against women, or belief in the stupidity of women, is not my motive.
Does anyone dispute that claim?
Well, the original question was “Should a sperm donor or birthparent be required to give up an organ to save their child’s life”?
Notice no organ was specified.
And really, I can’t believe I would have to talk you out of “Yes, people should be forced by threat of imprisonment to give up a kidney or part of their liver”
I’m afraid I don’t have the debating skills necessary to counter that viewpoint other than “People shouldn’t be forced to give up parts of their body, because, you know, it’s THEIR body”
An overturn of Roe vs Wade?
First a disclaimer : This is only opinion and supposition…
We would see a sharp rise in illegal abortions. Some would be performed by doctors and some would be done in back rooms by inept criminals (like in the old days). We would also probably see a rise in infants being abandoned - on road sides, in dumpsters, where-ever they used to dump them.