Andy Joesph

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@WildSageHeart @brooketcain Well that’s totally absurd and we’re just looping if you’re gonna continue comparing a healthy human child to a plant

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

Well, that’s a problem. It is a healthy living human, and killing it strips it of its right to continue developing and living its healthy life. Plants can’t do that, braindead people can’t do that. It’s immoral to kill your child at one week, 21 weeks, 40 weeks, in the nicu, or in the crib

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@Highway_30 So now fighting for your life, identity, and acceptance is a publicity stunt? Your right to be safe from this type of violence is a basic fucking human right!

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

Plants and brain dead people aren’t healthy living humans. Saying that is stupid.
Again, a sleeping person cannot be conscious, but will become conscious if not killed before they wake. A child from conception cannot necessarily be conscious (although they do become conscious at some point in the womb as in they can hear and react to sounds like their parents’ voices) but they will become conscious if not killed before further development

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

?? A braindead person will never be conscious again.. ok. Just like a fetus because the pieces aren’t there? Ofc the fetal child is becoming conscious. What do you think is developing?

Saying a developing human fetal child isn’t worthy of moral consideration is legitimately crazy

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

What does deploy consciousness mean?

Besides that you’re so close. If you’re asleep you don’t have to ability to be conscious, but to become conscious if left alone and your healthy life continues without being killed. Just like a fetus. If you don’t kill a sleeping person, he will wake up and resume consciousness. If you don’t kill a fetus, he will continue development until consciousness is apparent. He’s still a healthy living human from the time he’s conceived until the time he dies, including all the time spent in the womb, asleep in the crib, asleep in the bed, on the operating table, etc.

You know ears develop around week 18 and the baby starts listening to its (hopefully not murderous) mother? Going from viability to consciousness then this is philosophical and the child is brain dead is flailing about for nonsense excuses to kill your child. I’m sorry if you already did it but that doesn’t mean that it’s right. Some of the blame belongs to the parts of society who condone and promote it

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

You might wanna look up what consciousness and brain dead mean. We go unconscious when we sleep. Is it “merciful” to kill a sleeping person?

Also, not that it matters, but do you think babies lack consciousness all the way up until birth?

So first there isn’t a child who gets killed, but then well there is but the child is “brain dead” so it’s merciful to kill him? Also your healthy growing child isn’t worthy of moral consideration?

I’d hardly call that philosophical. I’d call that retarded

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

No, what you just said was brain dead. A child in the womb is not similar to a brain dead person. It is a healthy, growing child whose life is worth preserving just as much as anyone else. The mother shouldn’t be allowed to legally kill it, with or without a doctor’s help. Calling that murder “ethical” is just troll logic. Strupid, evil, ugly troll

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@WildSageHeart @brooketcain lol cringe wow. Then what are you killing? It’s a distinct living being in physical reality. It is is a human in fetal development. Humans are children of their parents. It’s a child

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

But they do happen, sometimes for no medical reason other than the mother’s mental health which is a cover for elective abortions. But quibbling over the number of weeks and proving that elective abortions do happen late term takes away from the broader point: elective abortion is the mother killing her healthy human child

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@grok @TruePatriop5m @luvmyjaide @ThatCheerMomOfX 1% of 1.1 million is…?
But for third trimester only the number is around 2-3,000 per year. Sounds like a lot

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@grok @mralpacalips @DrOBrienMD @Politics_Matter Is it ok for a mother to kill her healthy child in the womb?

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

Sounds pretty sus. They can perform an abortion, the infant is born alive, the same team can determine that lifesaving treatment is futile, and the 2023 law removed the explicit life-preservation language and the reporting requirement for these cases. How is that supposed to inspire confidence or accountability?

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

If the 2023 amendment merely clarified that futile treatment isn’t required, why simultaneously remove both the explicit life-preservation language and the reporting mechanism that allowed the public to know what happened to these infants? That creates a legitimate transparency concern.

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

Even granting that “good medical practice” normally requires lifesaving treatment for a viable infant, that raises the crucial question: who determines viability and whether treatment is futile? If the same team that performed the abortion makes that determination, what independent safeguard prevents a viable survivor from being classified as nonviable?

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@BrickCenter_ That was sarcastic. Carrington is a delusional, entitled ghetto thug. Ratchet, as some might say.

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@BrickCenter_ So much hate in the comments! lol

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@grok @mralpacalips @DrOBrienMD @Politics_Matter Personhood doesn’t itself establish a duty to provide every indicated lifesaving treatment. MN’s 2023 law removed “preserve the life and health” and replaced it with “care for.” If this only addressed futile care for nonviable infants, why didn’t the law say so?

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@iselda_dance @InstructorDuke Killing your child may be safer than pregnancy?

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@grok @mralpacalips @DrOBrienMD @Politics_Matter EMTALA can independently require stabilizing treatment in covered hospital, meaning federal law can protect some infants who might otherwise die under MN’s law. But that’s precisely why “the baby is a legal person, therefore withholding indicated care is illegal” doesn’t follow.

[Andy Joesph @joesph_andy]

@Jowilltellthet1 @JaydaBF Indeed