Sign in to follow this  
Larry

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

 

 

Often they aren’t given the option of a woman.

 

True, but given the number of women who identify as pro life, I'm not sure the sex of the politician is what's important, but rather the politicians views on abortion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LSF, can't women use birth control or use abstinence as well as men can?

 

Are they less capable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nonniey said:

New York for one.

 

To start with, I'll reply with a politifact headline (and link):  

 

No, New York abortion law doesn't let mothers abort babies a minute before they would be born

 

And then point at the first link my Google search came up with, which pretty much aligns with the above article, but I think provides more detail.  

 

Politifact: Addressing New York’s New Abortion Law

 

It certainly appears like the bill does exactly what the authors claimed it did - make the state's legislation match the rulings handed down in Roe.  (Whether one agrees with those rules, I can certainly see being debated.)  It permits abortion when:

 

1)  Within 24 weeks of pregnancy.  Or

2)  After 24 weeks, the fetus still isn't viable.  Or

3)  Abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.  

 

Now, the article points out, these are the rules handed down in Roe.  It points out, for example, that prior to this law, NY law stated abortions were allowed to protect the life of the mother, but not the health.  It says that the "health" part was actually included in Roe, the law on the books just didn't agree with it.  

 

And I'll agree, the article quotes other SC rulings (not the abortion law itself) to provide a pretty wide list of what constitutes "health".  Just my opinion, based on the number of people I see who seem to think they have the right to bring their poodle into the grocery store with them, based, as near as I can tell, on "But if Snookums was ever away from Mommy, Mommy would feel bad for Snookums", I can certainly see how some people are willing to convince a doctor into signing off on a "medical need" based on some pretty nebulous claims.  I think I'd agree with tightening up that part of the law some.  Maybe replace "health" with "prevent serious physical or psychological harm".  

 

OTOH, I also tend to have quite a bit of respect for doctors, and their medical judgement.  Give me a situation in which a doctor and a political activist disagree on a matter of medical judgement, I'm really gonna give more weight to the doctor.  

 

I'll also note:  The NY law "starts the clock" for 24 weeks at the start of pregnancy, which is also called implantation.  Which happens several days after fertilization.  

 

But arguing over whether NY state places the point at which additional restrictions kick in at "third trimester" rather than "Take the longest time ever achieved in the world, and add in a fudge factor to make it longer" hardly supports your claim that states are allowing abortions "at the last minute".  

 

Unless you'd like to revise your claim to "abortions at the last minute, if the mother's doctor determines that it's necessary to save the mother's life."  

 

As to some of your other points, do you really want to try to support your claim about what's legal, by pointing at somebody who was convicted of doing illegal things, and claiming that well, if he'd done those things somewhere else, then he only would have been convicted of some of the things he got convicted of, and pointing at somebody else, and claiming that well, he did so-and-so, back when it was legal to do that, and then when the law changed, he complied with the new law?  

 

Oh, and as to your claim that, prior to 24 weeks, the woman doesn't have to see a single doctor, am I correct that the point you're trying to make is that prior to that, the woman has to see "somebody who is licensed and permitted to perform whatever proceedure it is that she needs, but the law does not specifically state that only an MD can perform it"?  Cause somehow I'm pretty sure that NY state does not state that anybody who wants to is licensed to perform abortions, with no licensing at all.  I haven't found anything specific, but I'd be willing to be that some abortion procedures have to be performed by doctors.  But yeah, I could see how maybe some procedures (maybe chemical abortions?) could be performed by people with lower medical certifications.  (Maybe by NPs?  I dunno.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MartinC said:

You might want to talk to some women in your life about this - or actually a group of women you don’t know that well. You’d be surprised I think. You also might want to stand at a safe distance.

 

If men reproduced and a group of women held power and started telling you what you could and could not do with your body - how would you feel? And they criminalized your ability to take that decision or even cross State lines. Empowered or oppressed?

 

Sorry.  This whole "No one is allowed to participate in the debate about an issue unless they carry the membership card that I've cherry picked" argument is BS.  

 

Everyone in our society has standing on our society's laws and morals.  And our sociery as a whole adopts said rules.  

 

People who are not in the military have a right to debate whether we go to war.  

 

People who don't own guns have a right to discuss gun control laws.  

 

People who are not mouth breathing inbred morons have a right to discuss Donald Trump.  

 

Now, I can see the argument that all people, when discussing an issue, should at least try to empathize with those portions of society who are disproportionately affected by the issue.  I can see the argument that the opinions of a small group of people, who are greatly affected, might override the opinions of a large group who are barely affected at all.  

 

But try to tell me (or anybody else) that "you don't have that box checked on your ID card, therefore you are not permitted to express an opinion at all"?  

 

Sorry.  Yes I do.  

 

Deal with it.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I have a question for the group.

 

Since abortion rights almost always include discussion about a women's body autonomy, control over her own body/health, etc. do you all think the father should get any say whatsoever in this?

 

I certainly think that, in an ideal situation, his opinion should be consulted.  After all, he's certainly got an interest in the debate.  

 

However, I also have to say:  If the two opinions disagree, I certainly think that the "tie breaking vote" ought to go to the person who's body is being used.  

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

If you said no, do you think a father who wanted the women to get an abortion should still be responsible for paying child support?  

 

Yes, I certainly think that every father in the world should be able to avoid all child support, for life, simply by saying "I told her to get an abortion".  

 

(Was that sarcastic enough?)  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

People who are not mouth breathing inbred morons have a right to discuss Donald Trump.  

 

 

 

 

Dear Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about instead of laws criminalizing abortions (both getting and performing), a law was passed to criminalize men who impregnated women without consent? Bet that would make everyone understand the gravity of the situation before having sex. 

(yes I understand there are more reasons for abortions than accidental pregnancy, but it does make up a large portion)

 

Also, changes need to be made, many people that claim to be pro-life are actually only pro-birth. There are no sufficient programs in place to ensure that healthy, fruitful life actually occurs. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

How about instead of laws criminalizing abortions (both getting and performing), a law was passed to criminalize men who impregnated women without consent?

 

Pretty sure we already got those.  

 

This thread is about forcing said women to carry around the result, anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, twa said:

LSF, can't women use birth control or use abstinence as well as men can?

 

Are they less capable?

More drunk than I was an hour ago, lets see how that works out. Who should be more responsible? Who should carry that burden? Who should decide what women should do with their bodies on a legislated standpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Pretty sure we already got those.  

 

This thread is about forcing said women to carry around the result, anyway.  

What laws are you referring too? I am not aware of them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

What laws are you referring too? I am not aware of them....

 

I'm pretty sure that impregnating women without their consent is called "rape", or something like that.  

 

Pretty sure it's illegal.  In all 50 states.  

 

If not, then I've been missing out on a lot of fun, over the years.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rape is having SEX without consent. I indicated impregnating without consent. The fact that you do/did not recognize the difference is very telling. 

 

 

And did you then equate legalized rape to "fun"?????

Edited by thegreaterbuzzette
Add'l comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Rape is having SEX without consent. I indicated impregnating without consent. The fact that you do/did not recognize the difference is very telling. 

 

Is that the pull out clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Is that the pull out clause?

Oh Jesus, we talking about locking people up for the dude nutting too early?  How the hell do you prove that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Oh Jesus, we talking about locking people up for the dude nutting too early?  How the hell do you prove that?

 

Did you sign the form?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Did you sign the form?

 

"See officer, theres an obvious pin prick in this used condom! Hold it, you can see it by jus..."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm usually not much of a feminist. But the fact that so many of you aren't even willing to consider the Male having true consequence and accountability for a pregnancy is quite astonishing. Especially for this group.

 

No I'm not talking about "nutting early"....what are we 13?

 

I'm talking about shifting the thought to a Male being responsible for getting a woman pregnant, and not solely on the female for getting pregnant. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

To start with, I'll reply with a politifact headline (and link😞

 

No, New York abortion law doesn't let mothers abort babies a minute before they would be born

 

And then point at the first link my Google search came up with, which pretty much aligns with the above article, but I think provides more detail.  

 

Politifact: Addressing New York’s New Abortion Law

 

It certainly appears like the bill does exactly what the authors claimed it did - make the state's legislation match the rulings handed down in Roe.  (Whether one agrees with those rules, I can certainly see being debated.)  It permits abortion when:

 

1)  Within 24 weeks of pregnancy.  Or

2)  After 24 weeks, the fetus still isn't viable.  Or

3)  Abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.  

 

Now, the article points out, these are the rules handed down in Roe.  It points out, for example, that prior to this law, NY law stated abortions were allowed to protect the life of the mother, but not the health.  It says that the "health" part was actually included in Roe, the law on the books just didn't agree with it.  

 

And I'll agree, the article quotes other SC rulings (not the abortion law itself) to provide a pretty wide list of what constitutes "health".  Just my opinion, based on the number of people I see who seem to think they have the right to bring their poodle into the grocery store with them, based, as near as I can tell, on "But if Snookums was ever away from Mommy, Mommy would feel bad for Snookums", I can certainly see how some people are willing to convince a doctor into signing off on a "medical need" based on some pretty nebulous claims.  I think I'd agree with tightening up that part of the law some.  Maybe replace "health" with "prevent serious physical or psychological harm".  

 

OTOH, I also tend to have quite a bit of respect for doctors, and their medical judgement.  Give me a situation in which a doctor and a political activist disagree on a matter of medical judgement, I'm really gonna give more weight to the doctor.  

 

I'll also note:  The NY law "starts the clock" for 24 weeks at the start of pregnancy, which is also called implantation.  Which happens several days after fertilization.  

 

But arguing over whether NY state places the point at which additional restrictions kick in at "third trimester" rather than "Take the longest time ever achieved in the world, and add in a fudge factor to make it longer" hardly supports your claim that states are allowing abortions "at the last minute".  

 

Unless you'd like to revise your claim to "abortions at the last minute, if the mother's doctor determines that it's necessary to save the mother's life."  

 

As to some of your other points, do you really want to try to support your claim about what's legal, by pointing at somebody who was convicted of doing illegal things, and claiming that well, if he'd done those things somewhere else, then he only would have been convicted of some of the things he got convicted of, and pointing at somebody else, and claiming that well, he did so-and-so, back when it was legal to do that, and then when the law changed, he complied with the new law?  

 

Oh, and as to your claim that, prior to 24 weeks, the woman doesn't have to see a single doctor, am I correct that the point you're trying to make is that prior to that, the woman has to see "somebody who is licensed and permitted to perform whatever proceedure it is that she needs, but the law does not specifically state that only an MD can perform it"?  Cause somehow I'm pretty sure that NY state does not state that anybody who wants to is licensed to perform abortions, with no licensing at all.  I haven't found anything specific, but I'd be willing to be that some abortion procedures have to be performed by doctors.  But yeah, I could see how maybe some procedures (maybe chemical abortions?) could be performed by people with lower medical certifications.  (Maybe by NPs?  I dunno.)

Larry the New York law in effect made it easier to abuse the Health of the Mother and viability factors. So in effect yes abortion is legal at any time as long as you can get one doctor (who would almost certainly be the abortion provider) to sign off on the abortion as necessary.  And fetuses are viable at 21 weeks anyway so someone wouldn't even need an ethically challenged doctor for 3 weeks during the viability window.

 

The issue is the abuse of the health of the Mother and viability of the fetus waiver. 

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

But try to tell me (or anybody else) that "you don't have that box checked on your ID card, therefore you are not permitted to express an opinion at all"?  

 

Sorry.  Yes I do.  

 

Deal with it.  

 

 

You are entitled to an opinion. But a decision on what another human being does with their body? Not so much.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Rape is having SEX without consent. I indicated impregnating without consent. The fact that you do/did not recognize the difference is very telling. 

 

 

And did you then equate legalized rape to "fun"?????

 

Please describe for me a currently legal form of getting a woman pregnant without her consent.  

 

"Officer, I told him he could have sex with me, but only if he didn't get me pregnant"?  

 

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

You are entitled to an opinion. But a decision on what another human being does with their body? Not so much.

 

Name a current law that doesn't tell another human being what they can or can't do with their body.  

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Larry said:

Name a current law that doesn't tell another human being what they can or can't do with their body.  

 

 

There is a scale here. Telling someone they can’t use their body to steal is not the same as forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months and go through labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nonniey said:

Larry the New York law in effect made it easier to abuse the Health of the Mother and viability factors. So in effect yes abortion is legal at any time as long as you can get one doctor (who would almost certainly be the abortion provider) to sign off on the abortion as necessary.  And fetuses are viable at 21 weeks anyway so someone wouldn't even need an ethically challenged doctor for 3 weeks during the viability window.

 

The issue is the abuse of the health of the Mother and viability of the fetus waiver. 

 

The article specifically states that the NY law changes the law.  But that all it does is change the law to legalize things that were already legalized by Roe, anyway.  And supports that claim.  

 

And no, one fetus in human history was viable at 21 weeks.  Some of them aren't.  We have people who are trained to make that decision.  They're called "Doctors."  

 

And I'm pretty sure that we let doctors who do hip replacements decide whether a hip replacement is needed.  And doctors who do cardiac bypass to decide whether a patient needs one.  

 

Although yeah, I could see a requirement for a second opinion.  Maybe with a clause that allows things to be done sooner if the doctor, say, documents a life threatening emergency.  

 

And again, you're trying to support a claim of "abortion at the last minute" by arguing about "well, they said 24 weeks and I think if should be 20".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

There is a scale here. Telling someone they can’t use their body to steal is not the same as forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months and go through labor.

 

But now we've moved from "nobody who's not in Group X is allowed to have any input on anything that affects Group X", to "in matters of bodily autonomy, a great deal of leeway needs to be afforded to freedom of bodily autonomy".  

 

A position I agree with.  One which I've argued, using different presentations, in this thread.  

 

I simply have a problem with people taking that matter, and morphing it into absolute rules of disqualification from input.  

 

To repeat a previous example, no, our nation's gun laws should not be written solely by gun owners.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

I simply have a problem with people taking that matter, and morphing it into absolute rules of disqualification from input.  

 

‘Input’ is not what is happening here. What’s happening is one group of people characterised mainly by white middle class Christian males is imposing their morality via legislation on another group comprised 100% of women.

 

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

To repeat a previous example, no, our nation's gun laws should not be written solely by gun owners.  

 

Gun owners and non owners cover every demographic in this nation. Only women give birth.

 

Men - certainly fathers - should have input, but the decisions here need to be left to women as far as humanly possible. There have to be limits and a legal framework within which that choice/decision is taken - which is where things get murky. I’m not arguing that legal framework should exclusively be drawn up by women, but it certainly should not be drawn up by bodies which are predominantly male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

‘Input’ is not what is happening here. What’s happening is one group of people characterised mainly by white middle class Christian males is imposing their morality via legislation on another group comprised 100% of women.

 

 

Gun owners and non owners cover every demographic in this nation. Only women give birth.

 

Men - certainly fathers - should have input, but the decisions here need to be left to women as far as humanly possible. There have to be limits and a legal framework within which that choice/decision is taken - which is where things get murky. I’m not arguing that legal framework should exclusively be drawn up by women, but it certainly should not be drawn up by bodies which are predominantly male.

 

So, Congress should be prohibited from legislating on a particular societal issue, based on the demographic makeup of congress?  A congress which was democratically elected, by people of all demographics?  

 

Surely it's not the "imposed" aspect that you're objecting to.  Everything congress does is imposed on the entire country.  That's what governments do.  They pass laws which everybody in the country is required to follow.  

 

What does congress have to do, in your opinion, for them to have the right to legislate on this issue?  Do they have to be composed entirely of women?  

 

I'll point out that abortion laws only affect pregnamt women.  Does congress have to be composed only of pregnant women?  Or will women who have been pregnant in the past be sufficient?  Or is mere female gender sufficient for a congressman to be considered qualified to legislate on this, one, issue?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.