Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

[Cheetodust]

God, Europe must just be a hellscape for women then...

Europe is a continent and some countries have permissive abortion laws and others don't. The Irish had to fight hard to fight for a woman's right to choose because women were literally dying as they were forced to go to term on pregnancies that weren't viable.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is the reason why "with exceptions" is bullshit, btw

 

[Phoenixmgs]

EDIT:
Hospitals waiting on critical care until they become critical enough to be legally viable, increasing risk

Ain't got a lot of choices, champ
Ain't great a lot of the time. Look at who had to die horrifically to get access to abortions over there
I *am*, you weirdo. The fuck are you talking about?
That's not "simple deontology" in the slightest. Simple deontology says killing an innocent person is immoral, no ifs, ands, or buts. So *if* you accept the argument that a fetus is an innocent person *and* you actually subscribe to simple deontology, than that 10 year old rape victim committed an immoral act. Every country makes exceptions because they're run by people who live in reality and not by the edicts of Simple Deontology. That's, at best, Threshold Deontology, and that's subjective as shit.

You also haven't argued for why abortions are immoral to begin with. Shit dude, I could steelman half a dozen arguments that don't rely on religion or just vaguely gesturing at a poorly understood philosophy. I'm leaving those as an exercise for you, as I also disagree with them

Stop getting news from Twitter. One doctor is worried, who the fuck cares, what does the law say? Something you won't post.

There's usually a 3rd party to vote for.

I bet you don't like cops getting those BS confessions yet you're fine with doctors doing the same thing just because it supports your abortion beliefs...

That's not really what deontology is. I gave you a perfect simple example of it. Abortion is "on the whole" bad because if every pregnancy ended in an abortion, that's pretty fucking bad, thus abortion is bad (and I just explained why abortions are bad to begin with). That doesn't mean that every instance of abortion is bad. What if every women that got raped got an abortion? That wouldn't end in some bad situation for example so it's not bad. This is why the vast vast vast majority of countries have abortion laws limiting abortions in some manner because on the whole it's bad.

Europe is a continent and some countries have permissive abortion laws and others don't. The Irish had to fight hard to fight for a woman's right to choose because women were literally dying as they were forced to go to term on pregnancies that weren't viable.

Most European countries have abortion time limits more restrictive than the Mississippi law that challenged Roe v Wade.

What are the abortion time limits in EU countries? – Right To Life UK

A twelve-week gestational time limit would bring Britain in line with the majority of countries in the European Union where the median time limit for abortion

righttolife.org.uk

This is the reason why "with exceptions" is bullshit, btw

Seriously, stop posting fucking twitter bullshit. What's the actual law say?!?!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Stop getting news from Twitter. One doctor is worried, who the fuck cares, what does the law say? Something you won't post.

There's a whole ass article attached to that tweet you should read

There's usually a 3rd party to vote for.

Huh, for done reason I thought you lived in the United States

I bet you don't like cops getting those BS confessions yet you're fine with doctors doing the same thing just because it supports your abortion beliefs...

The shit are you on about?

That's not really what deontology is. I gave you a perfect simple example of it. Abortion is "on the whole" bad because if every pregnancy ended in an abortion, that's pretty fucking bad, thus abortion is bad (and I just explained why abortions are bad to begin with). That doesn't mean that every instance of abortion is bad. What if every women that got raped got an abortion? That wouldn't end in some bad situation for example so it's not bad. This is why the vast vast vast majority of countries have abortion laws limiting abortions in some manner because on the whole it's bad.

Jesus Christ, you should sue whoever taught you about deontology. You're so off that you aren't even close enough to be wrong.
EDIT: But then your example falls flat immediately, as even in Colorado not every pregnancy ends in abortion, rendering it not bad. As you say, this law doesn't actually change anything unless the federal government guns for abortion restrictions. Thus, it's demonstrably not immoral.

Most European countries have abortion time limits more restrictive than the Mississippi law that challenged Roe v Wade.

What are the abortion time limits in EU countries? – Right To Life UK

A twelve-week gestational time limit would bring Britain in line with the majority of countries in the European Union where the median time limit for abortion

righttolife.org.uk

Don't care

Seriously, stop posting fucking twitter bullshit. What's the actual law say?!?!

Dunno, too vague, will force hospitals to provide worse care to cover their ass legally. Read, ************, if hospitals are saying this is bullshit maybe they know better than you

 

[tstorm823]

Don't care

I do not understand why you bothered to say this. Phoenix provided evidence back disputing the position of a completely different user, why is you not caring worth saying? It's like you're going out of your way to brag about how little facts matter to you.

 

[Silvanus]

That's not really what deontology is. I gave you a perfect simple example of it. Abortion is "on the whole" bad because if every pregnancy ended in an abortion, that's pretty fucking bad, thus abortion is bad (and I just explained why abortions are bad to begin with).

Lol, that's.... one form. And a completely nonsensical, unworkable form.

If every person was male, the species would die out, therefore males are bad.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There's a whole ass article attached to that tweet you should read
Huh, for done readon I thought you lived in the United States
The shit are you on about?
Jesus Christ, you should sue whoever taught you about deontology. You're so off that you aren't even close enough to be wrong.

Don't care

Dunno, too vague, will force hospitals to provide worse care to cover their ass legally. Read, ************, if hospitals are saying this is bullshit maybe they know better than you

And the law text says abortions can be done based on reasonable medical judgement. Since when is reasonable medical judgement mean you have to wait until someone is seconds from death (or bad medical outcome) to do something? If you have cancer, you treat it as soon as possible. If you have a pregnancy that is destined to be a bad outcome, why wouldn't "reasonable medical judgement" be to terminate early as opposed to later?

I do live in the US, last time I voted, I voted almost completely for 3rd parties.

I'm assuming you're against coerced police confessions, right? If you are, why would you be for coerced doctor treatments on patients? There's a reason why doctors can't just do any treatment that is agreed upon.

That is deontology.

Deontology: What if Everyone Did That?

Maria’s best friend Tammy just bought a new skirt. Tammy asks Maria, “Do you like my skirt?” Maria doesn’t. She knows that telling Tammy the truth will hurt her feelings, but she also knows that lying…

academy4sc.org

This is Kant’s more sophisticated version of our common sense question, “What if everyone did that?” as a guide to action. For an action to be considered “right,” everyone should be able to do the act without a logical or practical contradiction.

Yes, I know you don't care about anyone else's opinions but your own...

And I just read the Missouri law, it doesn't seem nearly as vague as you're making it out to be. What you say vs what the actual law says is usually 2 very different things. So stop posting twitter bullshit and post actual text from laws. Why do you even use twitter, it's a horrible platform for many reasons.

Lol, that's.... one form. And a completely nonsensical, unworkable form.

If every person was male, the species would die out, therefore males are bad.

No, it's not. And your example is piss poor logic that makes no sense. If it was what if everyone aborted every female (or male) pregnancy, that would be bad. That does not equate to males or females being bad, but the aforementioned act. Deontology is about whether ACTIONS are right or wrong.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And the law text says abortions can be done based on reasonable medical judgement. Since when is reasonable medical judgement mean you have to wait until someone is seconds from death (or bad medical outcome) to do something? If you have cancer, you treat it as soon as possible. If you have a pregnancy that is destined to be a bad outcome, why wouldn't "reasonable medical judgement" be to terminate early as opposed to later?

Because that's not how laws and lawsuit happy DAs work, and physicians aren't going to risk decade long prison sentences over it. After all, just having cancer isn't a medical emergency: you can't get chemotherapy from an emergency room. Some DA would absolutely sue somebody for murder for getting an abortion when they have cancer, and if they can't prove that they couldn't afford to wait for their pregnancy to resolve itself naturally before getting treatment, they would then go to prison.

How many stories of forcing people to carry dead and dying fetuses until they're septic do you fucking need? You're over here waxing philosophically into your navel while ignoring actual observed reality.

I do live in the US, last time I voted, I voted almost completely for 3rd parties.

And how many times has your third party candidate got vote results in double digit percentages for anything above City Councilor?

I'm assuming you're against coerced police confessions, right? If you are, why would you be for coerced doctor treatments on patients? There's a reason why doctors can't just do any treatment that is agreed upon.

If the doctor and patient are in agreement, where's the fucking coercion you muppet?

That is deontology.

Deontology: What if Everyone Did That?

Maria’s best friend Tammy just bought a new skirt. Tammy asks Maria, “Do you like my skirt?” Maria doesn’t. She knows that telling Tammy the truth will hurt her feelings, but she also knows that lying…

academy4sc.org

This is Kant’s more sophisticated version of our common sense question, “What if everyone did that?” as a guide to action. For an action to be considered “right,” everyone should be able to do the act without a logical or practical contradiction.

I am once again fucking begging you to read your own fucking sources

The second important formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative is called the Humanity Formula and states that “One should always treat rational beings as ends in themselves and never as only a means to an end.” The formulation is usually interpreted as uplifting the rights of other people. Because of the Humanity Formula, deontology is often considered to be a “rights-based” approach to morality. It prioritizes the rights that we have as humans to freedom of choice, movement, beliefs, etc. over the consequences of ensuring these rights are upheld. This is a common criticism of utilitarianism, an approach which determines the rightness of action solely based on consequences.

Another criticism of deontology is that rigidly following rules can lead to some confusing outcomes. We can certainly think of cases in which telling a lie would actually be beneficial, perhaps even in Maria and Tammy’s scenario. Since deontology does not give any weight to the consequences of any action, it does not allow for exceptions to the rule. Lying, cheating, and stealing are always wrong, even if doing so would save lives.

I am quite happy over my rigid, Deontology-esc belief that the government should not be allowed to force somebody to carry out a pregnancy, thank you very much.

Yes, I know you don't care about anyone else's opinions but your own...

"Other people do things differently" isn't an argument nor opinion in-and-of itself for what *we* should do, it's a logical fallacy. So yeah, I do not care

And I just read the Missouri law, it doesn't seem nearly as vague as you're making it out to be. What you say vs what the actual law says is usually 2 very different things. So stop posting twitter bullshit and post actual text from laws. Why do you even use twitter, it's a horrible platform for many reasons.

If I post a YouTube video that directly links to that same source, would that suddenly be okay? You know those tweets link directly to news articles, yeah? And that maybe hospital administrators know how to interpret those laws better than you?

But hey, cancer and arthritis patients are already having a harder time getting medication because of this shit. If I post directly to a news article about that instead of a tweet linking to the article, would you finally give a shit?

 

[Silvanus]

No, it's not. And your example is piss poor logic that makes no sense. If it was what if everyone aborted every female (or male) pregnancy, that would be bad. That does not equate to males or females being bad, but the aforementioned act. Deontology is about whether ACTIONS are right or wrong.

It's piss poor logic just as much as your statement, about how if everyone in the world did X thing, it would cause a bad outcome, so therefore anyone at all doing it is bad. Both are piss poor for exactly the same reason, which has nothing to do with whether we're talking about "actions" or not. Both are piss poor because its putting forward an absurd, counterfactual scenario in order to condemn an entirely different scenario.

If everyone in the world became a schoolteacher, it would be bad, because nobody would be around to do any other jobs! Society would collapse! Therefore becoming a schoolteacher is bad.

Ya see? That's an action. That's applying the same logic. It doesn't fucking make sense. Because the REASON it's bad DOESN'T APPLY when fewer people do it.

Countless actions would be bad if everyone on earth did them, but are absolutely fine if a smaller number of people do them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because that's not how laws and lawsuit happy DAs work, and physicians aren't going to risk decade long prison sentences over it. After all, just having cancer isn't a medical emergency: you can't get chemotherapy from an emergency room. Some DA would absolutely sue somebody for murder for getting an abortion when they have cancer, and if they can't prove that they couldn't afford to wait for their pregnancy to resolve itself naturally before getting treatment, they would then go to prison.

How many stories of forcing people to carry dead and dying fetuses until they're septic do you fucking need? You're over here waxing philosophically into your navel while ignoring actual observed reality.
And how many times has your third party candidate got vote results in double digit percentages for anything above City Councilor?
If the doctor and patient are in agreement, where's the fucking coercion you muppet?
I am once again fucking begging you to read your own fucking sources



I am quite happy over my rigid, Deontology-esc belief that the government should not be allowed to force somebody to carry out a pregnancy, thank you very much.
"Other people do things differently" isn't an argument nor opinion in-and-of itself for what *we* should do, it's a logical fallacy. So yeah, I do not care
If I post a YouTube video that directly links to that same source, would that suddenly be okay? You know those tweets link directly to news articles, yeah? And that maybe hospital administrators know how to interpret those laws better than you?

But hey, cancer and arthritis patients are already having a harder time getting medication because of this shit. If I post directly to a news article about that instead of a tweet linking to the article, would you finally give a shit?

DAs don't try cases that have low chance for winning because they care desperately about their win percentage. What medical expert is going to testify that a woman with some legit pregnancy issue (whether cancer or whatever) that terminating the pregnancy was not using "reasonable medical judgement"? That case is unwinnable.

It's not my fault that others don't do their part when voting. All I can control is doing my part.

Do you not understand how people can agree to things that they don't fully understand? How many people fully understand normal medical decisions and just go with what the doctor says because it's the doctor saying it?

You do realize you don't have to follow things 100% to the T, right? Are people not Christians that don't follow every word of the Bible? I literally just explained how something can be bad on the whole based on deontology but also allow for exceptions while applying literally the same deontology tenant.

I realize that's not a logical reason in and of itself. But don't you think there's reasons why like every country has abortion laws, women in far more progressive countries than the US aren't protesting about abortion laws that are more restrictive than a red state's law that challenged Roe, doesn't that tell you something? Don't you want to understand their perspective vs just saying they are wrong, logical fallacy, etc.?

Youtube videos can be good, twitter posts are so garbage. Just link an article, why do you have link to a twitter post that comments on the article in a way that completely misrepresents the actual article or law or data that happens like 90% of the time? You read the twitter comment and then read the article with that mindset and you go in biased when reading it. That's why I just want the facts and not the commentary or at least look at the facts first, develop my opinion, then check out other people's opinions if it's a rather nuanced subject to gain a better understanding. Hospital administrators are lawyers? Give me a lawyer's take on a law.

It's piss poor logic just as much as your statement, about how if everyone in the world did X thing, it would cause a bad outcome, so therefore anyone at all doing it is bad. Both are piss poor for exactly the same reason, which has nothing to do with whether we're talking about "actions" or not. Both are piss poor because its putting forward an absurd, counterfactual scenario in order to condemn an entirely different scenario.

If everyone in the world became a schoolteacher, it would be bad, because nobody would be around to do any other jobs! Society would collapse! Therefore becoming a schoolteacher is bad.

Ya see? That's an action. That's applying the same logic. It doesn't fucking make sense. Because the REASON it's bad DOESN'T APPLY when fewer people do it.

Countless actions would be bad if everyone on earth did them, but are absolutely fine if a smaller number of people do them.

Actions can be amoral.

 

[Cheetodust]

Most European countries have abortion time limits more restrictive than the Mississippi law that challenged Roe v Wade.

What are the abortion time limits in EU countries? – Right To Life UK

A twelve-week gestational time limit would bring Britain in line with the majority of countries in the European Union where the median time limit for abortion

righttolife.org.uk

Once again the point isn't even within orbit of your head. What I was saying is that yes. In certain parts of Europe it is really fucking bad for women. Northern Ireland is one of them. Until very recently so were the 26 counties.

Europe isn't a country. You can't say Europe is good or bad for abortion when Europe contains both Poland and the Netherlands and then just go "but on average". Because the average allowance between those two countries is 12 weeks. You see why that's a problem when one of those countries is 0 weeks.

Like you think you're some paragon of logic but you're just either just lazy or dishonest and have to outsource your thinking to some shitty logical structure which by the way...

That's not really what deontology is. I gave you a perfect simple example of it. Abortion is "on the whole" bad because if every pregnancy ended in an abortion, that's pretty fucking bad, thus abortion is bad.

...is really fucking dumb.

Like most sex doesn't end in the propagation of the species. So by your simplistic reasoning condoms are bad because if we always used condoms and always used them correctly that would be bad. So we better restrict their use because that means that they are de facto bad. Also, oral and anal are bad, homosexuality is bad, bukkake is bad, pegging is bad, IUD's are bad, the pill is bad, if every load landed on a sock that would be bad, so you would have to concede that cranking your shaft is bad but I bet you'll whack it sometime soon and wouldn't be super chill with the government looking to restrict that. If every encounter ended on her tum tum then that would be pretty fucking bad thus pulling out is bad.

Now it is funny that the only line you draw is the one that allows women to have bodily autonamy. It's almost like you don't support a woman's right to choose and used bullshit philosophy to work backward to that conclusion and then wash your hands of having to take any moral responsibility for the bullshit you believe. Or maybe you are about to surprise me and say that you do think all of the shit I listed is in fact bad, you do support the government regulating then and you finally out yourself as the full on trad con everyone can clearly tell you are.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I do not understand why you bothered to say this. Phoenix provided evidence back disputing the position of a completely different user, why is you not caring worth saying? It's like you're going out of your way to brag about how little facts matter to you.

Let's be clear, he's never provided evidence of anything in any argument.

 

[Cheetodust]

Actions can be amoral.

And who is in charge of deciding that and what's the criteria? Because right now all I'm seeing is "If everyone doing a thing would be bad then that thing is bad except when it isn't." So you ready to admit that you actually only really believe that for actions you personally find "bad" and it is entirely based on your feelings and jot any logic. Because you're just, at best, a fascist sympathiser.

 

[Silvanus]

Actions can be amoral.

Not seeing how this impacts a single point here.

 

[Cheetodust]

Not seeing how this impacts a single point here.

Because his conclusions are driven entirely by logic and not feeling. And just scientifically abortions are bad. Also, vaginas aren't meant to get wet and Yumi Nu isn't hot. It's just science bro.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

DAs don't try cases that have low chance for winning because they care desperately about their win percentage. What medical expert is going to testify that a woman with some legit pregnancy issue (whether cancer or whatever) that terminating the pregnancy was not using "reasonable medical judgement"? That case is unwinnable.

Case doesn't have to be winnable for a hospital to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves. Or to throw somebody in jail for a few days to send a message

After pursuing an indictment, Starr County district attorney drops murder charge over self-induced abortion

Texas law exempts a pregnant person from being charged with murder or any lesser homicide charge for an abortion.

www.texastribune.org

It's not my fault that others don't do their part when voting. All I can control is doing my part.

Blind to reality as usual.

Do you not understand how people can agree to things that they don't fully understand? How many people fully understand normal medical decisions and just go with what the doctor says because it's the doctor saying it?

That's not coercion nor is it on topic

You do realize you don't have to follow things 100% to the T, right? Are people not Christians that don't follow every word of the Bible? I literally just explained how something can be bad on the whole based on deontology but also allow for exceptions while applying literally the same deontology tenant.

It's not Simple Deontology then, is it? Things being good or bad based on circumstances is literally consequentialism.

I realize that's not a logical reason in and of itself. But don't you think there's reasons why like every country has abortion laws, women in far more progressive countries than the US aren't protesting about abortion laws that are more restrictive than a red state's law that challenged Roe, doesn't that tell you something? Don't you want to understand their perspective vs just saying they are wrong, logical fallacy, etc.?

I'm intimately familiar with a wide variety of their reasonings, probably moreso than you are. And I think they're wrong for a similar variety of reasons. You just stating "other people think different" is not an opinion nor an argument and does not need to be taken seriously,

Youtube videos can be good, twitter posts are so garbage. Just link an article, why do you have link to a twitter post that comments on the article in a way that completely misrepresents the actual article or law or data that happens like 90% of the time?

Says the dude who doesn't read his own sources

You read the twitter comment and then read the article with that mindset and you go in biased when reading it. That's why I just want the facts and not the commentary or at least look at the facts first, develop my opinion, then check out other people's opinions if it's a rather nuanced subject to gain a better understanding.

Ahh yes, the unique feature of Twitter that YouTube does not do, lmao

Hospital administrators are lawyers? Give me a lawyer's take on a law.

Frequently, yeah. Knowledge of laws and bureaucracy are necessary to run a hospital, so at the very least they have lawyers on staff taking a look at these laws

That "impossible choice" has already been a feature of reproductive health care in the South for years, says Dr. Louise King, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who's also an attorney and ethicist. "It's just going to get much, much worse," she says.

"Laws will exist that ask [physicians] to deprioritize the person in front of them and to act in a way that is medically harmful. And the penalty for not doing so will be loss of license, money loss, potentially even criminal sanctions," King explains. "How can you possibly resolve that conflict?"

For doctors, abortion restrictions create an 'impossible choice' when providing care

Physicians must treat in line with patients' wishes and standards of care. Some medical ethicists say that abortion bans will force doctors to disregard these obligations in order to follow the law.

www.npr.org

Actions can be amoral.

You have yet to make a case for government interventions in pregnancy that wasn't just a vague allusion to other people thinking government has the right of interventions in pregnancy, let alone a case that abortions are immoral.
Therefore, Colorado's abortion law is amoral at worst. I'd argue it's explicitly moral, as it shields people from corrupt governmental coercion that can cause them direct and indirect harm

 

[thebobmaster]

Just to show you how far concern is about women's bodily autonomy has gotten after all of this: it now appears possible that investigators are going to be able to use period tracking apps as evidence for abortion-murder cases. Or at least, it's enough of a possibility to warrant an official White House warning.

White House says Americans should be 'really careful' about using period tracker apps | CNN Politics

The White House is warning individuals to be "really careful" when using phone apps that track users' menstrual cycles over fears that the data could be used against them if they seek abortions following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

www.cnn.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Once again the point isn't even within orbit of your head. What I was saying is that yes. In certain parts of Europe it is really fucking bad for women. Northern Ireland is one of them. Until very recently so were the 26 counties.

Europe isn't a country. You can't say Europe is good or bad for abortion when Europe contains both Poland and the Netherlands and then just go "but on average". Because the average allowance between those two countries is 12 weeks. You see why that's a problem when one of those countries is 0 weeks.

Like you think you're some paragon of logic but you're just either just lazy or dishonest and have to outsource your thinking to some shitty logical structure which by the way...

...is really fucking dumb.

Like most sex doesn't end in the propagation of the species. So by your simplistic reasoning condoms are bad because if we always used condoms and always used them correctly that would be bad. So we better restrict their use because that means that they are de facto bad. Also, oral and anal are bad, homosexuality is bad, bukkake is bad, pegging is bad, IUD's are bad, the pill is bad, if every load landed on a sock that would be bad, so you would have to concede that cranking your shaft is bad but I bet you'll whack it sometime soon and wouldn't be super chill with the government looking to restrict that. If every encounter ended on her tum tum then that would be pretty fucking bad thus pulling out is bad.

Now it is funny that the only line you draw is the one that allows women to have bodily autonamy. It's almost like you don't support a woman's right to choose and used bullshit philosophy to work backward to that conclusion and then wash your hands of having to take any moral responsibility for the bullshit you believe. Or maybe you are about to surprise me and say that you do think all of the shit I listed is in fact bad, you do support the government regulating then and you finally out yourself as the full on trad con everyone can clearly tell you are.

Many European countries that are more progressive than the US have abortion law that is more restrictive than what the Mississippi law changing Roe is. France is more restrictive, Finland is more restrictive, Denmark is more restrictive. Are you saying all these countries are bad places for women to live?

I'm not fucking against abortions, it's like nobody here actually reads my posts... Abortion is not some simple issue yet you all act like it is. There's tons of reasons why far more progressive countries have more restrictive abortion law than the US during Roe. Most of the world does not agree with the notion that abortions should just be a thing that a women can get at any time. You all are acting like, anyone that doesn't have your stance is some evil person wanting to control women, that's a load of fucking bullshit and you're not going to get anywhere in the debate talking to people like that.

Let's be clear, he's never provided evidence of anything in any argument.

I provide data to all my arguments but you rarely do and if you do, it's usually a poor method that has super obvious flaws that you just like because it agrees with your opinions.

Case doesn't have to be winnable for a hospital to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves. Or to throw somebody in jail for a few days to send a message

After pursuing an indictment, Starr County district attorney drops murder charge over self-induced abortion

Texas law exempts a pregnant person from being charged with murder or any lesser homicide charge for an abortion.

www.texastribune.org

Blind to reality as usual.
That's not coercion nor is it on topic
It's not Simple Deontology then, is it? Things being good or bad based on circumstances is literally consequentialism.
I'm intimately familiar with a wide variety their reasonings, probably moreso than you are. And I think they're wrong for a similar variety of reasons. You just stating "other people think different" is not an opinion nor an argument and does not need to be taken seriously,
Says the dude who doesn't read his own sources
Ahh yes, the unique feature of Twitter that YouTube does not do, lmao
Frequently, yeah. Knowledge of laws and bureaucracy are necessary to run a hospital, so at the very least they have lawyers on staff taking a look at these laws

For doctors, abortion restrictions create an 'impossible choice' when providing care

Physicians must treat in line with patients' wishes and standards of care. Some medical ethicists say that abortion bans will force doctors to disregard these obligations in order to follow the law.

www.npr.org

You have yet to make a case for government interventions in pregnancy that wasn't just a vague allusion to other people thinking government has the right of interventions in pregnancy, let alone a case that abortions are immoral.
Therefore, Colorado's abortion law is amoral at worst. I'd argue it's explicitly moral, as it shields people from corrupt governmental coercion that can cause them direct and indirect harm

Once one case of a type is found to be the wrong interpretation of the law, then all other cases will get thrown out. That happens with tons of laws all the time.

Blind to what? I actually vote for people that will actually change the status quo. If you don't like the status quo, why vote for people that will only keep that status quo going?

Yeah, it is. Just look at the covid debacle.

You can kinda argue deontology is consequentialism to a degree to begin with but it doesn't have to do with the consequence of any single action regardless.

When literally everyone else in the world doesn't agree with you, just maybe it's you.

You're saying I don't read sources when you can't even read the laws you're talking about or give me the part of the law that says what you say it says?

Twitter doesn't allow to have much nuance with argument because of the character limit.

Exactly, give me a lawyer's opinion on the law.

When those laws DO exist we can talk about them but they don't exist according to your own source.

Having a late-term abortion just cuz is not moral.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Once one case of a type is found to be the wrong interpretation of the law, then all other cases will get thrown out. That happens with tons of laws all the time.

Hilarious and wrong. They *might* be proven innocent, but that doesn't invalidate the law

Blind to what? I actually vote for people that will actually change the status quo. If you don't like the status quo, why vote for people that will only keep that status quo going?

And how much status quo are you changing?

Yeah, it is. Just look at the covid debacle.

That's right, every major health organization is lying

You can kinda argue deontology is consequentialism

No you fucking can't. they're different philosophies for a reason. Make your peace with that

When literally everyone else in the world doesn't agree with you, just maybe it's you.

19% of the United States agrees with me, +/-3%. I already shared that statistic.

You're saying I don't read sources when you can't even read the laws you're talking about or give me the part of the law that says what you say it says?

Yes, you don't read your sources and assume every advocate I bring up is ignorant or lying.

Twitter doesn't allow to have much nuance with argument because of the character limit.

Lmao, which is why those tweet tend to link to articles

Exactly, give me a lawyer's opinion on the law.

Did so

When those laws DO exist we can talk about them but they don't exist according to your own source.

The fuck are you talking about?

Having a late-term abortion just cuz is not moral.

Why? You've literally never made that argument, except for that stupid "but it would be bad if *everybody* got aborted, so it's bad if *anybody* gets aborted" tripe

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Hilarious and wrong. They *might* be proven innocent, but that doesn't invalidate the law
And how much status quo are you changing?
That's right, every major health organization is lying
No you fucking can't. they're different philosophies for a reason. Make your peace with that

19% of the United States agrees with me, +/-3%. I already shared that statistic.

Yes, you don't read your sources and assume every advocate I bring up is ignorant or lying.
Lmao, which is why those tweet tend to link to articles
Did so
The fuck are you talking about?
Why? You've literally never made that argument, except for that stupid "but it would be bad if *everybody* got aborted, so it's bad if *anybody* gets aborted" tripe

It does invalidate the law in the manner it was applied.

More than you, who keeps the same people in power. I do what I can, you don't seem to do your part if you're voting for either party.

When the very top US vaccine expert doesn't agree with policy and when the 2 top FDA directors quit, that's telling you something. Also what major health organizations said to keep schools closed for 18 months?

I said it's somewhat similar to consequentialism because you are looking at what would happen, it's not in the same vein as consequentialism that looks at literally every single isolated action. Applying an extra circumstance to a rule doesn't turn deontology into consequentialism.

Thus, 81% doesn't agree with you. I didn't say literally everyone else disagrees with you but every country as a collective whether 81%, 92%, or 51% disagrees with you.

I do read my sources, you just read some opinion on a source vs the source itself. Which is why more than half the time, I read the law and it doesn't say what you claim it says. Nor can you even copy/pasta the part of the law that claims what you said because it doesn't exist, and then give some bullshit excuss that's too long to copy/pasta.

Why are you even on Twitter to begin with, it's a garbage platform.

No, you didn't.

The article says that laws WILL, let me know what they actually DO.

It's literally the first fucking post of the thread...

This law allows a woman to get an abortion literally the minute before she would give birth, which is pretty damn ridiculous.