What is the point of being so hostile though? It adds nothing to the discussion and (potentially) make somebody feel bad. I know this is the internet here, so perhaps I'm expecting too much, but it seems rather futile. Besides, there were no math mistakes in the original post. There was an ill considered predicate…

No need to be an asshole to somebody because their facts are wrong. It takes just as much time as actually looking up the information and informing people.

Yeah not sure where you got those numbers. Check it out here http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc653.html

That was definitely a deplorable opinion, but rather than walk out like that did you consider taking a minute to maybe challenge his point of view? Obviously you're not going to go on a second date, but maybe you could help him and the others he is going to interact with in the future. You know, spread the…

Thank you for the information, I stand corrected. Did you think I was being somehow flagrantly ignorant that you had to "put me in my place" though? No need to be an asshole about it, it was a simple misunderstanding.

Its not just any general intent, specifically it is "intent to destroy evidence of the crime." Since the woman in question is the victim of this crime, it would be incredible difficult to prove that she had intent to destroy evidence against her attacker. My mother is a defense attorney and I asked her about it, she…

It would be so ridiculously hard to prove that the woman had "intent to destroy evidence of the crime". I can't even imagine a situation where this would be possible. Intent is a very hard thing to prove in general, let alone a situation where the intent goes directly against the interests of the person in question.

No, you are definitely right. Everyone wants to jump to crazy conclusions without thinking about it. It would be near impossible for any prosecutor to prove intent to destroy evidence against the woman, and that is a requirement for this law. There are many valid reasons for having an abortion and nobody can prove…

Where does it say that? Specifically it says "compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion". You can't compel yourself, it is clearly targeting a third party.

Her vascular artery was blocked. No reason to assume that would have impacted circulation to the babies until her heart actually stopped.

I agree that there is probably a valid malpractice suit here for the death of the babies, but it looks like they did what they could to save the mother. The obstetrician could not have done anything for her. You can't sue just because someone dies, no matter how tragic it is.

Totally. This one time I was with a girl who's parents performed a non-consensual cosmetic procedure on her when she was a baby and I was like, what a turn off, put your pants back on and get out of here.