Trump the cry-baby

[tzor]

A doctor conned a woman into having an abortion.

"It's only a blob of tissue ..."

"No you can't see an ultrasound ... that's an invasion of your privacy and the equivalent of rape ..."

"Why no, that blob of tissue can't feel a thing ..."

[tzor]

Accessory (legal term)

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

[Symmetry]

Accessory (legal term)

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

Seems like a good thing that abortion isn't a crime.

[tzor]

Seems like a good thing that abortion isn't a crime.

Yes, a woman could lose her medical license for being involved in one.

[Symmetry]

Seems like a good thing that abortion isn't a crime.

Yes, a woman could lose her medical license for being involved in one.

Huh?

[riskllama]

all pro lifers should be killed and there organs sold to China.

[Dukasaur]

all pro lifers should be killed and there organs sold to China.

their organs.

It's not rocket science. Just Grade Three English.

[riskllama]

Shit.

[muy_thaiguy]

all pro lifers should be killed and there organs sold to China.

their organs.

It's not rocket science. Just Grade Three English.

He took Canadian, so don't be TOO hard on him.

[riskllama]

[TheProwler]

A doctor conned a woman into having an abortion.

"It's only a blob of tissue ..."

"No you can't see an ultrasound ... that's an invasion of your privacy and the equivalent of rape ..."

"Why no, that blob of tissue can't feel a thing ..."

Dude, you are really stretching here....

A woman walks into an abortion clinic.......and gets conned?!?!?!?!


I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

[Symmetry]

A doctor conned a woman into having an abortion.

"It's only a blob of tissue ..."

"No you can't see an ultrasound ... that's an invasion of your privacy and the equivalent of rape ..."

"Why no, that blob of tissue can't feel a thing ..."

Dude, you are really stretching here....

A woman walks into an abortion clinic.......and gets conned?!?!?!?!


I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

It's fairly common nowadays in the US for a woman not to be given the best advice. Antiabortion activists have made it that way. Some states require women to be told that they're at risk of cancer, or mental problems if they have an abortion.

No medical evidence for it, but they require abortion providers to lie to their patients or break the law.

[tzor]

Yes, a woman could lose her medical license for being involved in one.

Huh?

In many states, an accessory to a crime gets a similar punishment as that of the principal. Since the basic method to outlaw abortion would be to outlaw the procedure, the principal, that is to say the doctor, and joint principals (which is to say the operating staff), would probably, under that law, lose their licence to practice medicine, for performing an illegal procedure.

[tzor]

I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

But once again, it depends on how it is made to be illegal. In many ways it could be easily illegal and the woman might not even know it. The doctor may not have admitting privileges, for example, which would make the procedure illegal under a state law, but the woman might not know either the law or that the person fails to meet the requirement.

This happens even outside of the abortion industry. There is a constant CYA mentality that causes many professionals to suggest abortions for conditions that might (but not always) cause problems down the road. Women who are courageous enough to ignore that advice often wind up with perfectly healthy babies because the doctor was so afraid of the worst case he or she literally wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The ability to see the unborn child drastically reduces the "choice" to abort because, let's face it, even unborn children are cute.

[tzor]

It's fairly common nowadays in the US for a woman not to be given the best advice. Antiabortion activists have made it that way. Some states require women to be told that they're at risk of cancer, or mental problems if they have an abortion.

Actually you are at risk for mental problems if you just give birth ... it's known as postpartum depression.

Cancer risks are more complicated. Here is the executive summary. The conversion of breast tissue to active lactating organs is a two step process. The first step promotes the growth of cells that, left unaltered, could have a increase risk of becoming cancerous. The second step converts these cells into cells that have a reduced risk. Thus any abortion that is performed before a completed birth cycle has a change of simply increasing the potentially cancerous cells, but after a successful birth cycle these cells are already converted and thus there is no risk of an artificially aborted cycle. (Note a natural abortion generally does not trigger the cell growth that is a result of a healthy embryo implanting in the womb.)

[Symmetry]

It's fairly common nowadays in the US for a woman not to be given the best advice. Antiabortion activists have made it that way. Some states require women to be told that they're at risk of cancer, or mental problems if they have an abortion.

Actually you are at risk for mental problems if you just give birth ... it's known as postpartum depression.

Cancer risks are more complicated. Here is the executive summary. The conversion of breast tissue to active lactating organs is a two step process. The first step promotes the growth of cells that, left unaltered, could have a increase risk of becoming cancerous. The second step converts these cells into cells that have a reduced risk. Thus any abortion that is performed before a completed birth cycle has a change of simply increasing the potentially cancerous cells, but after a successful birth cycle these cells are already converted and thus there is no risk of an artificially aborted cycle. (Note a natural abortion generally does not trigger the cell growth that is a result of a healthy embryo implanting in the womb.)

Does having an abortion increase the risk of mental health problems?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0905882?viewType=Print&

Answer- No

Does having an abortion increase the risk of cancer?
http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk

Answer: No

It's a shame that there's so much misinformation and pseudoscience out there.

[tzor]

Does lying about a question increase the change you will pull the words over someone's eyes?

Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder. Doesn't talk about second or third trimester abortions.

As I stated, cancer is very complex ... let's go through some of the findings in your study ...

Early age at first term birth is related to lifetime decrease in breast cancer risk.

Here is a hint, not having a pregnancy at an early age, if you have not had a normal birth results in a first term birth. Now, what is the lack of a decrease when compared to the decrease?

Also note the dissent in the report.

[TheProwler]

I am sure there are examples where a woman was not given the best advice, but I don't think that is the norm. Besides, what we are talking about is who should be held criminally responsible if abortion was deemed to be illegal. If that were the case, the woman having the abortion would know she was breaking the law.

But once again, it depends on how it is made to be illegal. In many ways it could be easily illegal and the woman might not even know it. The doctor may not have admitting privileges, for example, which would make the procedure illegal under a state law, but the woman might not know either the law or that the person fails to meet the requirement.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Trump simply said that if a woman breaks the law, she should be punished. It shouldn't be a big deal.

[Symmetry]

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1]

•Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• In 2011, 1.06 million abortions were performed, down 13% from 1.21 million in 2008. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, 1.7% of women aged 15–44 have an abortion [2]. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[3]

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and at 2008 abortion rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]

No wonder Trump is having so much trouble with women.

[warmonger1981]

The people who wrote that article can't break down fractions. Four out if ten =1/5

[riskllama]

The people who wrote that article can't break down fractions. Four out if ten =1/5

really, mongo???

[warmonger1981]

2/5 . must have hit the 1 on accident.

[Symmetry]

2/5 . must have hit the 1 on accident.

Meh, it happens to all of us sometimes. A bit more to anti-choice folk, I suppose, but I don't judge.

Apart from mangling fractions, what's your take on the stats?

[warmonger1981]

I think that women are irresponsible. Half of the pregnancies are on accident. Complete irresponsibility. A man should be able to drop a load without a woman getting pregnant.

[mrswdk]

I think that women are irresponsible. Half of the pregnancies are on accident. Complete irresponsibility. A man should be able to drop a load without a woman getting pregnant.

Maybe the irresponsible thing is having casual sex with women in the first place. Any responsible man should restrict his love-making receptacles to other men until such time as he decides he wants a family.