New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority

Tagged: 

  • This topic has 56 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by ujm.
Viewing 7 posts - 51 through 57 (of 57 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1915644
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Yes it should be , but it is still used, and I mentioned “interstitial pregnancy” to avoid this confusion .
    It is an imprecise term, BUT as you correctly noted it is used for intrauterine pregnancies.”

    So it is – but that’s the point of the Wiley article. The people that use it, whether in the Medical field or not, Should Stop using it!

    “a. That isn’t necessarily true (sure some dictionaries may take a more limited definition but not al do)
    b. Some ectopic pregnancies are intrauterine (eg interstitial pregnancies sometimes imprecisely referred to as Cornual pregnancies)”

    A.- I don’t care what some dictionaries do – let them read the Wiley article.
    B. – You can’t call Interstitial pregnancies – Intrauterine, because they are outside the endometrial cavity.

    #1915766
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “So it is – but that’s the point of the Wiley article. The people that use it, whether in the Medical field or not, Should Stop using it!”

    Meh. This may surprise you Oksana H. Baltarowich MD does not get to regulate speech
    and more to the point, regardless of what you want to call it. Ectopic pregnancies in the uterus exist. See the Wiley article.

    “A.- I don’t care what some dictionaries do – let them read the Wiley article.”

    It doesn’t matter what you care about. It matters what lawyers who write the laws (and judges who interpret them) care about, and what dictionary they read What if they dont stumble across the wiley article like you did?

    “B. – You can’t call Interstitial pregnancies – Intrauterine, because they are outside the endometrial cavity.”
    Stop grasping its in the uterus. period. (and again even if it wasn’t it is still a pregnancy)

    Look this conversation is boring. You are the first I’ve heard claim there is no such thing as a pregnancy that threatens the mother’s life. though I did fins a quack who made a similar argument online though she since retracted (referenced above). I have enough experience with you to know you arent capable of retracting.

    I have Chazal, and poskim on my side who all refer to cases where a mother’s life is endangered. Sadly I have real world experience too. Nobody I know in real life thinks these things don’t exist. If you are forced to redefine basic words like “pregnancy”, “abortion” and “uterus” to back up your bizarre claim (and if any ONE of those words maintains its Webster’s definition your point is wrong)

    If you have any specific question. I’d be happy to answer otherwise believe whatever you want

    #1915800
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Ectopic pregnancies in the uterus exist. See the Wiley article. It doesn’t matter what you care about. It matters what lawyers who write the laws (and judges who interpret them) care about, and what dictionary they read What if they dont stumble across the wiley article like you did?
    Stop grasping its in the uterus. period. (and again even if it wasn’t it is still a pregnancy)”

    Of course people like you will give any Absurd Reason why we can’t Outlaw Abortion.
    Of course you’ll find one of a thousand or maybe one of Millions to keep Abortion Legal!
    The Truth is We can Outlaw it.
    If the pregnancy is Not viable – you can Abort it acc. to Judaism or Xiatinity.
    If it’s viable, then wait & see.
    If there’s Major complication(s), you can Abort. If Not, Mazel tov.

    You can write this in the Law.
    There’s NO Reason to Keep all Abortions Legal!

    #1915827
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    nothing you said in your post contradicts anything Ive said in this thread

    Ive discussed abortion many times before what Iv said in those threads hasnt changed

    In this thread I was correcting a misstatment you made namely that there is no such thing as a pregnancy endagering a mother.

    There is as you now clairfy
    thank you for your clarification.

    The next question is who decides what constitutes a “threat ot he mother” is that strictly a medical question or is it halachic too?
    Again IVe discussed this in several threads so there is no reason to repeat it here

    #1915869
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“In this thread I was correcting a misstatment you made namely that there is no such thing as a pregnancy endagering a mother”
    This is Not Truth or Consequences!
    Look at the context.
    The main reason here and anywhere, the illogical reason they give is if you Outlaw Abortion then you end up with 2 deaths.
    The Truth that scenario is extremely rare, not a common occurrence. Therefore it should be illegal.
    The reason that e/o wants to keep Abortion legal has nothing to do with Saving Lives. They want to create kids w/o any responsibility.

    “The next question is who decides what constitutes a “threat ot he mother” is that strictly a medical question or is it halachic too?”
    Ideally both! Sometimes it’s not possible , there isn’t any time.

    #1916178
    MosheFromMidwood
    Participant

    Roberts is not a reliable conservative vote

    #1916204
    ujm
    Participant

    There’s a solid conservative majority even without Roberts.

Viewing 7 posts - 51 through 57 (of 57 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.