I don't even know what to title this post.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

I have feelings about this but they may not be popular so I'll just keep them to myself.

kllrbnny · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:
JumpingJudahBean:
ali_bl-nov05:

Heather implied that there's no jurisprudence because the issue is new. I'm saying that it is not, becasuse abortion has been considered illegal since 1884. Do you think that this situation has not come up once since then?

But it wasn't illegal across the board until 2009. The amendment made it so.

I suppose you mean that it was not illegal in all cases? It was consider illegal since there's a penal code. Obviously the constitution is above the law, if that's what you mean.

The constitution states (in it's article 37);

Art?culo 37.- Right to life.The right to life is inviolable from conception to death. Death penaltyIt can't be stablished, pronounced or applied, in any case, . (translation is mine)

My thesis which is that therapeutical abortion can be consider and included within the right to self defense.

Look, it is clear that this situation is crappy all around. What I'm saying here is that the doctors didn't have to hold back the treatment (they are provinding it now). I urge to follow up this case for any legal repercussion against them and see that there won't be any.

Yes, a pro-choice agenda is being pushed here, and they are using a case that does not apply. They want a change (their prerrogative) saying "Oh no, this kid didn't get treatment because of the constitution" when in reality that's not true. It's mere sensasionalism.

In order to weigh in on your thesis we are going to need to know what the constitution says about self defense.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:

FezzesAreCool:
I have feelings about this but they may not be popular so I'll just keep them to myself.
Would we disagree?
I'z curious.

Although I'm also not really keen on a bona fide abortion debate.

It's more bootstrappy but I have no room to talk because of the nature of the bootstraps.

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

Ben Dover:
Ali, are you defending the DR abortion policy? Or are we all misunderstanding you?
ETA: Also, do you have me blocked, or is there some other reason you've avoided my questions/comments?

It is not a secret that I'm pro-life. My point to this is that they are using a case that is sure to get very visceral reactions to get support, when there arguments are simply not true. No prosecution for therapeuthical abortions, they continue to be performed. Ask any dominican OB Gyn.

Besides, once more, it has not come to light wether or not Esperanza wanted to terminate.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:

FezzesAreCool:
It's more bootstrappy but I have no room to talk because of the nature of the bootstraps.
LOL I'm totally confused as to where bootstraps come in here.
Please to 'splain?

Was she having safe sex? If not, why not?

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:
FezzesAreCool:
IrishCoffee7:

FezzesAreCool:
It's more bootstrappy but I have no room to talk because of the nature of the bootstraps.
LOL I'm totally confused as to where bootstraps come in here.
Please to 'splain?

Was she having safe sex? If not, why not?

I find this completely and totally irrelevant to what the law should be personally.
ETA: Morally/ethically there may be an argument here. Maybe you can judge her. But she should be able to get an abortion.

That's why I said it was unpopular, IC. lolz.

I agree that she should be able to get the abortion if she wants one.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:
FezzesAreCool:
That's why I said it was unpopular, IC. lolz.
I agree that she should be able to get the abortion if she wants one.

Which is why I hate debating stuff like this to begin with. It's so hard to define your parameters. You can have opinions on what is right, and opinions on what should be legal, but they're not always going to be the same thing.
Rule number one is to establish what, exactly, is being argued to begin with I suppose.

Are you mad at me or something? It seems like we've been butting heads a lot lately and I don't understand why.

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:
kllrbnny:
ali_bl-nov05:
JumpingJudahBean:
ali_bl-nov05:

Heather implied that there's no jurisprudence because the issue is new. I'm saying that it is not, becasuse abortion has been considered illegal since 1884. Do you think that this situation has not come up once since then?

But it wasn't illegal across the board until 2009. The amendment made it so.

I suppose you mean that it was not illegal in all cases? It was consider illegal since there's a penal code. Obviously the constitution is above the law, if that's what you mean.

The constitution states (in it's article 37);

Art?culo 37.- Right to life.The right to life is inviolable from conception to death. Death penaltyIt can't be stablished, pronounced or applied, in any case, . (translation is mine)

My thesis which is that therapeutical abortion can be consider and included within the right to self defense.

Look, it is clear that this situation is crappy all around. What I'm saying here is that the doctors didn't have to hold back the treatment (they are provinding it now). I urge to follow up this case for any legal repercussion against them and see that there won't be any.

Yes, a pro-choice agenda is being pushed here, and they are using a case that does not apply. They want a change (their prerrogative) saying "Oh no, this kid didn't get treatment because of the constitution" when in reality that's not true. It's mere sensasionalism.

In order to weigh in on your thesis we are going to need to know what the constitution says about self defense.

OK I actually missed that part completely. But is this Alis's "thesis" or a legitimate exception under the law?

No, it is not an exception in the law. I agree it is better for it to be included as an exception. Again the change that the protester are hoping for is not that. They want to make abortion legal. What bothers me is that they are doing so saying that it would have been illegal for doctor to provide chemo, and that is not true.

littlemac1117 · July 2012

"the right to life is inviolable from the moment of conception and until death."...Uh, except for the person who already has a life? I don't get why it was ever in question either.

ETA: Wow, maybe I shoulda read all the responses first haha

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

Is sex ed available in the country where this happened? Is that prevented by the government because of religious views? Did the birth control fail?

I feel for this girl, I really do. I can't imagine being 16, fighting cancer and having to make this kind of decision. I just wonder if the pregnancy could've been prevented in the first place by basic sex ed or an easily available condom.

littlemac1117 · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:
Ben Dover:
Ali, are you defending the DR abortion policy? Or are we all misunderstanding you?
ETA: Also, do you have me blocked, or is there some other reason you've avoided my questions/comments?
It is not a secret that I'm pro-life. My point to this is that they are using a case that is sure to get very visceral reactions to get support, when there arguments are simply not true. No prosecution for therapeuthical abortions, they continue to be performed. Ask any dominican OB Gyn.
Besides, once more, it has not come to light wether or not Esperanza wanted to terminate.

I guess what is bothering me is that you are making crazy generalizations. You keep saying things like "never" and that "not one" OB has ever been prosecuted for performing therapeutic abortions. Have you asked every OB in the DR about this?

Arguments like this drive me up the **!ng wall.

Kitiara5512 · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:
IrishCoffee7:
kllrbnny:
ali_bl-nov05:
JumpingJudahBean:
ali_bl-nov05:

Heather implied that there's no jurisprudence because the issue is new. I'm saying that it is not, becasuse abortion has been considered illegal since 1884. Do you think that this situation has not come up once since then?

But it wasn't illegal across the board until 2009. The amendment made it so.

I suppose you mean that it was not illegal in all cases? It was consider illegal since there's a penal code. Obviously the constitution is above the law, if that's what you mean.

The constitution states (in it's article 37);

Art?culo 37.- Right to life.The right to life is inviolable from conception to death. Death penaltyIt can't be stablished, pronounced or applied, in any case, . (translation is mine)

My thesis which is that therapeutical abortion can be consider and included within the right to self defense.

Look, it is clear that this situation is crappy all around. What I'm saying here is that the doctors didn't have to hold back the treatment (they are provinding it now). I urge to follow up this case for any legal repercussion against them and see that there won't be any.

Yes, a pro-choice agenda is being pushed here, and they are using a case that does not apply. They want a change (their prerrogative) saying "Oh no, this kid didn't get treatment because of the constitution" when in reality that's not true. It's mere sensasionalism.

In order to weigh in on your thesis we are going to need to know what the constitution says about self defense.

OK I actually missed that part completely. But is this Alis's "thesis" or a legitimate exception under the law?

No, it is not an exception in the law. I agree it is better for it to be included as an exception. Again the change that the protester are hoping for is not that. They want to make abortion legal. What bothers me is that they are doing so saying that it would have been illegal for doctor to provide chemo, and that is not true.

It read to me more like the doctors were concerned that it would be illegal for them to do an abortion before starting chemo, which would have been the optimal option. Are you saying that they would have been allowed to do under the law or an exception to the law? Or only that they would not be prosecuted if undergoing chemo caused a miscarriage or fetal death which would then need an abortion to remove the fetus?

[Deleted User] · July 2012

So the doctors could have/should have began treatment without the okay of the courts, and trusted that they would not have been prosecuted if/when miscarriage was induced by the chemo? Can we really expect doctors to risk their livelihood and possibly their freedom to treat patients counter to the law? Is that fair?

Or should maybe the law just be changed?

ETA: If the agenda they're pushing is "hey, I should be able to get a girl her cancer treatment without being afraid that I'm going to jail," then I'm perfectly fine with sensationalism, I guess.

I don't think an American patient could expect that kind of treatment either (without a direction from the court), if abortion were illegal across the board. That stuff might happen on House, but I don't think doctors are throwing themselves on the mercy of the legal system in the real world. Maybe I'm cynical.

[Deleted User] · July 2012

The user and all related content has been deleted.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

I'm the absolute worst.

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

littlemac1117:
ali_bl-nov05:
Ben Dover:
Ali, are you defending the DR abortion policy? Or are we all misunderstanding you?
ETA: Also, do you have me blocked, or is there some other reason you've avoided my questions/comments?
It is not a secret that I'm pro-life. My point to this is that they are using a case that is sure to get very visceral reactions to get support, when there arguments are simply not true. No prosecution for therapeuthical abortions, they continue to be performed. Ask any dominican OB Gyn.
Besides, once more, it has not come to light wether or not Esperanza wanted to terminate.
I guess what is bothering me is that you are making crazy generalizations. You keep saying things like "never" and that "not one" OB has ever been prosecuted for performing therapeutic abortions. Have you asked every OB in the DR about this?
Arguments like this drive me up the **!ng wall.

I'm familiar with the jurisprudence because I'm an attorney. Obvioulsy I have not asked ALL OBs wether or not they perform therapeutical abortions, LOL. I know mine does, and know of several others who do. But even if it turns out only a few doctors do, then, those few who have, in the last 100 years, have not faced prosecution.

Cases like Esperanza's make headlines because refusing treatment because of pregnancy is just plain rare.

I hope this case sets and example to other physicians and they do not hesitate to help a woman in need because she is pregnant, this shouldn't be an issue. Not to mention how dumb it is to let a woman die when that necessarily means that the fetus will not stand a chance neither.

[Deleted User] · July 2012

The user and all related content has been deleted.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

SookieFrackhouse68:

FezzesAreCool:
I'm the absolute worst.

Totes.

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were in Sherlock's closet when I crop dusted it.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:
FezzesAreCool:
SookieFrackhouse68:

FezzesAreCool:
I'm the absolute worst.

Totes.

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were in Sherlock's closet when I crop dusted it.

LOL.
Also now I'm all nervous and shiit that I am being mean and not knowing it. Sometimes I'm busy at work and just pop in, bestow my opinion on my minions, and pop back out. I may be missing context or not realize how my e-tone-of-voice sounds.

Sowwy.

Oh no! I've just noticed that you've been a little more prickly than usual lately and I was worried I'd done something to offend you and didn't realize it.

[Deleted User] · July 2012

The user and all related content has been deleted.

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

SookieFrackhouse68:
FezzesAreCool:
SookieFrackhouse68:

FezzesAreCool:
I'm the absolute worst.

Totes.

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were in Sherlock's closet when I crop dusted it.

Biitch, I'm ALWAYS in his closet!

R.Sookie

FezzesAreCool · July 2012

IrishCoffee7:

FezzesAreCool:
Oh no! I've just noticed that you've been a little more prickly than usual lately and I was worried I'd done something to offend you and didn't realize it.
I have noticed myself being more prickly than usual.
I should probably step away from the interwebz when I'm cranky.

I still LYLAS.

Heather R · July 2012

As usual, ali doesn't know what she is talking about.

A therapeutic abortion is deliberately terminating a pregnancy to save a mother's life. This is NOT legal in the DR:

Prohibited altogether, or no explicit legal exception to save the life of a woman https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/IB_AWW-Latin-America.pdf Treating a pregnant woman in a manner that may cause fetal death turns out to be legal, but her doctors need to be positive it is legal or they face incarceration and loss of their medical licenses. Ensuring their careers are not in jeopardy if chemo ends her pregnancy, according to ali, makes them scheming, moronic agents of the pro-choice agenda. Using a medical treatment that inadvertently causes miscarriage is not the same as therapeutic abortion.

Ali, please point out the self-defense clause of the Constitution. I skimmed and may have missed it. However, an internet search turned up absolutely nothing on how medical treatment can be covered in self-defense, so please clarify this for us using the exact words and if possible, provide a legal precedent.

A 16 year old mother may get a special needs baby or may face serious health complications resulting from treatment that must coincide with pregnancy. Congrats, ali-- your stance of mercy sure has improved that girl's quality of life and maybe even puts her blood on the hands of anti-choice.

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

Kitiara5512:
It read to me more like the doctors were concerned that it would be illegal for them to do an abortion before starting chemo, which would have been the optimal option. Are you saying that they would have been allowed to do under the law or an exception to the law? Or only that they would not be prosecuted if undergoing chemo caused a miscarriage or fetal death which would then need an abortion to remove the fetus?

The argument here is if it would have been ilegal to provide chemo, knowing that it could result in miscarriage/fetal death. The answer is no. I think we can all see that the text of the constitution is not an impediment for it.

The subject of aborting the fetus is directly related to wether or not Esperanza wanted one. That has not come to light, I guess if/when it does, the discussion will take another tone.

Could they have performed the abortion? well, as I said there's no exception in the law, and as I said I think there should be one. I also said that had they done it, there are plenty of legal intepretations to back them up and that in the practice doctors perform these procedures without repercussions.

The law and constitution are not very explicit, but removing a death fetus from a woman's body is not abortion under any definition I've known of it. Correct me if I'm wrong in that aspect (I'm not being snarky, I mean it)

Kitiara5512 · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:
Kitiara5512:
It read to me more like the doctors were concerned that it would be illegal for them to do an abortion before starting chemo, which would have been the optimal option. Are you saying that they would have been allowed to do under the law or an exception to the law? Or only that they would not be prosecuted if undergoing chemo caused a miscarriage or fetal death which would then need an abortion to remove the fetus?
The argument here is if it would have been ilegal to provide chemo, knowing that it could result in miscarriage/fetal death. The answer is no. I think we can all see that the text of the constitution is not an impediment for it.
The subject of aborting the fetus is directly related to wether or not Esperanza wanted one. That has not come to light, I guess if/when it does, the discussion will take another tone.
Could they have performed the abortion? well, as I said there's no exception in the law, and as I said I think there should be one. I also said that had they done it, there are plenty of legal intepretations to back them up and that in the practice doctors perform these procedures without repercussions.
The law and constitution are not very explicit, but removing a death fetus from a woman's body is not abortion under any definition I've known of it. Correct me if I'm wrong in that aspect (I'm not being snarky, I mean it)

I am under the impression (damn, I'm under a lot of impressions today) that the mother of the minor child provided consent or was willing to and it was not an option due to laws. I'll have to go look for the mother's quote I bolded earlier for that.

Kitiara5512 · July 2012

Kitiara5512:
IrishCoffee7:
WTAF.
Are you kidding me?

If the pro-choice agenda is that the life of a 16yo should have to come before that of her fetus, and that she shouldn't be faced with the disgusting prospect of undergoing chemo while pregnant knowing the damage it is doing to her fetus, plus having no control over if, when, or how her MC takes place...then yeah, I'm all for the pro-choice "agenda".

JFC.

This.
"My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said.
Sounds like the parent did authorize the abortion to save her daughter.

kllrbnny · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:

The argument here is if it would have been ilegal to provide chemo, knowing that it could result in miscarriage/fetal death. The answer is no. I think we can all see that the text of the constitution is not an impediment for it.

The subject of aborting the fetus is directly related to wether or not Esperanza wanted one. That has not come to light, I guess if/when it does, the discussion will take another tone.

Could they have performed the abortion? well, as I said there's no exception in the law, and as I said I think there should be one. I also said that had they done it, there are plenty of legal intepretations to back them up and that in the practice doctors perform these procedures without repercussions.

The law and constitution are not very explicit, but removing a death fetus from a woman's body is not abortion under any definition I've known of it. Correct me if I'm wrong in that aspect (I'm not being snarky, I mean it)

How is that obvious? Unless the constitution is specifically wide open to interpretation it says NO abortion. Please tell me what I'm missing.

And can you please explain why self defense is a reason around the no abortion rule.

Heather R · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:

The argument here is if it would have been ilegal to provide chemo, knowing that it could result in miscarriage/fetal death. The answer is no. I think we can all see that the text of the constitution is not an impediment for it.

No, we cannot see that because it says "inviolable right to life from conception." How is anyone supposed to deduce "it's okay to kill a fetus with poisonous chemo meant for its mother" out of that?

RedWingsFan · July 2012

I still don't see how the wording in the constitution indicates that there is an exception for therapeutic abortion.

Also, Ali - you make it sound like it's a no-brainer decision to treat this girl and there would be no consequences for the doctors, but if that's the case, then why this:

"Doctors at SEMMA started evaluating the teen for chemotherapy last week, pending an official decision on whether they could proceed with the treatment.

Representatives from the Dominican Ministry of Health, the Dominican Medical College, the hospital and the girl's family talked for several days about how to proceed. A decision was made early this week, Cabrera said."

I still fail to see how this is sensationalism and part of the pro-choice agenda.

This seems like a very real issue that needs to be looked at - what if this girl had died in the few days it took to come to a decision to treat?

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

Heather says I said this:

Heather R:
As usual, ali doesn't know what she is talking about.

A therapeutic abortion is deliberately terminating a pregnancy to save a mother's life. This is NOT legal in the DR:

Prohibited altogether, or no explicit legal exception to save the life of a woman

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/IB_AWW-Latin-America.pdf

I said this:

ali_bl-nov05:
No, it is not an exception in the law. I agree it is better for it to be included as an exception. Again the change that the protester are hoping for is not that. They want to make abortion legal. What bothers me is that they are doing so saying that it would have been illegal for doctor to provide chemo, and that is not true.

and this:

ali_bl-nov05:
Could they have performed the abortion? well, as I said there's no exception in the law, and as I said I think there should be one. I also said that had they done it, there are plenty of legal intepretations to back them up and that in the practice doctors perform these procedures without repercussions.

Heather R:
Treating a pregnant woman in a manner that may cause fetal death turns out to be legal, but her doctors need to be positive it is legal or they face incarceration and loss of their medical licenses. Ensuring their careers are not in jeopardy if chemo ends her pregnancy, according to ali, makes them scheming, moronic agents of the pro-choice agenda. Using a medical treatment that inadvertently causes miscarriage is not the same as therapeutic abortion.

Are you saying they needed a whole week to figure out wether or not providing chemo in this case is illegal? I'm pretty sure they could have, and should have, act much sooner, it was all pure burocracy. So yeah, they are morons and they endangered this girl unnecesarily.

about the bolded I said this:

ali_bl-nov05:
The argument here is if it would have been ilegal to provide chemo, knowing that it could result in miscarriage/fetal death. The answer is no. I think we can all see that the text of the constitution is not an impediment for it.

So I don't really understand why you are putting this out there, oh well.

Heather R:
Ali, please point out the self-defense clause of the Constitution. I skimmed and may have missed it. However, an internet search turned up absolutely nothing on how medical treatment can be covered in self-defense, so please clarify this for us using the exact words and if possible, provide a legal precedent.

Self defense is in the penal code, not the constitution:

"Art. 328.-There's no crime nor felony when murder, and wounds are the product of the actual necessecity of defending one's self or somebody else." (translation is mine)

Hence my thesis, and many other attorneys thesis, that theraputical abortion can be assimilated to the need to self defense. There are no legal precedent in this particular interpretation because there have been no cases of doctors being prosecuted for therapeutical abortions. No prosecutions, no jurisprudence.

Heather R:
A 16 year old mother may get a special needs baby or may face serious health complications resulting from treatment that must coincide with pregnancy. Congrats, ali-- your stance of mercy sure has improved that girl's quality of life and maybe even puts her blood on the hands of anti-choice.

My stance? oh you mean, the one where I said I was in favor of therapeutical abortions? or the one when I saidit was dumb to not provide treatment for the girl knowing that the fetus will never make it if she didn't? Now you are just making an effort to put stuff in my mouth.

Gosh, I should be working.

Heather R · July 2012

"My thesis which is that therapeutical abortion can be consider and included within the right to self defense."

eta: "No prosecution for therapeuthical abortions, they continue to be performed. Ask any dominican OB Gyn."

You called this therapeutic abortion there twice.

RedWings has already addressed your assertion that it took a week for the moronic doctors, you know-- the really pro-life ones?-- to decide, and I already addressed your assertion that it should be plain as day to everyone that you can do whatever you want to a pregnant woman. No, it should not be plain as day. Maybe in the anti-choice logic it is plain as day.

Where are all these attorneys? Sources.

"Hence my thesis, and many other attorneys thesis, that theraputical abortion can be assimilated to the need to self defense. There are no legal precedent in this particular interpretation because there have been no cases of doctors being prosecuted for therapeutical abortions. No prosecutions, no jurisprudence."

As for this. You really don't get it. You just don't. THERE ARE NO THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS IN YOUR COUNTRY. THERE ARE NONE.

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

Kitiara5512:
Kitiara5512:
IrishCoffee7:
WTAF.
Are you kidding me?

If the pro-choice agenda is that the life of a 16yo should have to come before that of her fetus, and that she shouldn't be faced with the disgusting prospect of undergoing chemo while pregnant knowing the damage it is doing to her fetus, plus having no control over if, when, or how her MC takes place...then yeah, I'm all for the pro-choice "agenda".

JFC.

This.
"My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said.
Sounds like the parent did authorize the abortion to save her daughter.

This does not provide information in Esperanza's wishes. It would break my heart if she wanted one to improve her chances of survival and was denied, but we don't know that. We might never know really, I'm sure there's a lot of preassure.

Kitiara5512 · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:
Kitiara5512:
Kitiara5512:
IrishCoffee7:
WTAF.
Are you kidding me?

If the pro-choice agenda is that the life of a 16yo should have to come before that of her fetus, and that she shouldn't be faced with the disgusting prospect of undergoing chemo while pregnant knowing the damage it is doing to her fetus, plus having no control over if, when, or how her MC takes place...then yeah, I'm all for the pro-choice "agenda".

JFC.

This.
"My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said.
Sounds like the parent did authorize the abortion to save her daughter.
This does not provide information in Esperanza's wishes. It would break my heart if she wanted one to improve her chances of survival and was denied, but we don't know that. We might never know really, I'm sure there's a lot of preassure.

But is sure sounds like the mother consented, and with the kid being a minor, the mother would make medical decisions, I would think.

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

Heather, you are putting my quotes out of context and I have no time to prove you are. I guess people can go back and read if they are interested, but I doubt they are so... whatever.

I'm sorry I have not documented every conversation I've had with collegues about the thesis I explained (I should have known how important that is in order to prove stuff on TB) but here is one. This particular person is very much against the constitutional amendment and still agrees with me in my self defense argument. I suppose you are going to need to translate it on google:

https://noticiassin.com/www/display_article_print.php?aid=3633

ali_bl-nov05 · July 2012

Moidonna:
Kitiara5512:
FFS. What about her right to life? What if she dies or the disease progresses to where chemo would no longer do jack shiit? Sentence her to a slow, long, agonizing death so that their laws can be upheld, and the baby dies anyway?

Definitely, this!

Exactly.

Heather R · July 2012

ali_bl-nov05:

Heather, you are putting my quotes out of context and I have no time to prove you are. I guess people can go back and read if they are interested, but I doubt they are so... whatever.

I'm sorry I have not documented every conversation I've had with collegues about the thesis I explained (I should have known how important that is in order to prove stuff on TB) but here is one. This particular person is very much against the constitutional amendment and still agrees with me in my self defense argument. I suppose you are going to need to translate it on google:

https://noticiassin.com/www/display_article_print.php?aid=3633

I speak Spanish.

And those are not out of context at all. It's not my fault you don't know what therapeutic abortion means or that your countrywomen aren't allowed to have them even though you think they are.

Think about it. Why would old Snr. Aceveda need to think of a legal defense to a therapeutic abortion if obtaining one wasn't a crime?

I don't know why the article says the Church hasn't protested such a defense. They excommunicated an American nun for saving the life of an dying eclamptic patient by aborting her pregnancy.

PS: Hearsay from all the high-falootin' lawyers you rub elbows with isn't credible information.

Want a personalized experience?

I don't even know what to title this post.

Re: I don't even know what to title this post.

Choose Another Board

Search Boards