Sign in to follow this  
Larry

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

........  Of that 1% what percentage is women simply changing their minds about wanting to have a baby and walking into Dr. Office demanding an abortion versus some kind of medical issue reason?

 

From my understanding only a very small percent of that 1 percent involves aborting healthy fetuses from healthy mothers.  Very small depending on sources only 3-10 thousand a year.

 

Are you ok with 3-10 thousand a year?

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Not for the type of abortions many of us want banned. (Well unless they go to China or Iceland). Because those are illegal just about everywhere. 

 

Canada has no restriction on abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

Unless I misinterpreted him, nonniey is in support of the heartbeat measures in Ohio/Georgia and other policies that have driven abortion access to extinction. These aren't abortion with some restrictions, these are blanket bans on abortion masquerading as restrictions.

 

 

@nonniey says he supports abortion until the fetus reaches the age of record viability outside of the womb.  He put an exact week on it that I don't remember.

 

That's supporting abortion with some restrictions.

 

@Larry has said that he supports unlimited abortions in the first 30 days.  That's supporting abortion with some restrictions. 

 

I'm not sure how either one would describe themselves in a poll in terms of pro-life vs. pro-choice, but I know a lot of people on the left that would scream if they publicly claimed they were pro-choice.

 

Lots of people support abortion with some restrictions.  The problem becomes when you start talking about what those restrictions are and in lots of cases, those restrictions are not things that people on the far left agree with.

 

I support abortion with some restriction, but I would not call myself pro-choice.  I'm pro-life, but I also know that making abortions illegal won't end them and that by making the illegal you are putting mother's lives at risk.  I'm also not for fully overturning Roe v. Wade, but also am not a fan of it completely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

From my understanding only a very small percent of that 1 percent involves aborting healthy fetuses.  Very small depending on sources only 3-10 thousand a year.

 

Are you ok with 3-10 thousand a year?

 

Probably not. But that is why I am asking for actual data on the matter.

 

So if I was to say ban 3rd trimester abortion except in the case of medical reasoning (which would have to be defined of course) then is that acceptable? 

Share this post


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

That sounds perfectly reasonable if you don't consider a viable unborn healthy child to be "alive."  It sounds like murdering a baby if you do.  This is the difficulty of the abortion debate. 

 

There is a majority that want abortion to be "mostly legal."  There is not a majority that wants it "entirely legal for any reason."

 

 

 

 

Totally agree. It’s a very personal and highly emotive subject and reasonable people will disagree on it. 

 

My my position is I don’t feel the right - or need - to project my opinion or moral stance on this subject onto the woman who is pregnant. It should be her decision.

 

Now I do accept there has to be some legal framework within which that decision is taken. Which brings us back to rooms full of elder white men making that judgement. And making it practically impossibly for a woman to exercise any choice over what is happening with her own body. 

 

It’s not a good look.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The exact line to draw should probably be determined by a doctor & patient.  That is pretty much where I stand on the issue. 

 

We rather strictly limit Dr's choosing to end a human's life, or other humans choosing to do so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

^^^^Thats just trolling...which is very common in these matters.

 

Republican Party is the party of trolls, thanks to Trump.  It’s sport for them, by and large.

 

 

Added:

 

And this whole term of “alive”...

 

An amoeba is “alive”, herpes is “alive”, that spider you stepped on yesterday or that ant you flicked off of your kitchen counter WAS “alive”.

 

Just cause something is “alive” doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to kill something without impunity.

 

A heartbeat means NOTHING.

Edited by Springfield
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

We rather strictly limit Dr's choosing to end a human's life, or other humans choosing to do so.

 

 

 

But people can't agree on when fetus becomes a life.  Pro-choice side isn't saying that the baby in the womb is a life but kill it anyway.  They are starting from a fundamentally different perspective.  Or at least saying that this is too difficult a question to answer definitively so we'll let individuals make their decisions and leave it up to them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, nonniey said:

This is the extreme position of the pro-choice side that even most pro-choicers wouldn't agree with. This allows for abortions at the last minute (and is currently permitted in some states). Problem is this is the default position taken in the fight.  Similar to backing the NRA even though people who support gun rights liking some of the gun control proposals that the NRA automatically opposes.

 

What is extreme about letting a woman decide what to do with her own body?

 

Now to be honest I do accept that decision (like just about all decisions) happens within a legal framework. But that framework can not be so restrictive has to take away any choice from a woman. So we get back to the 'debate' (it's more people talking across each other) about what that framework should be. Given there are a wide range of perfectly valid individual opinions on what is morally right the law here should stray to the limits of what is reasonable (I would argue that is when life is viable outside the womb - so say 21 to 23 weeks). It's certainly not 8 weeks.

 

But fundamentally rooms full of old rich white guys deciding what young (mainly) not well off women do with their bodies based on their narrow view of what is "moral" is not a good look.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Springfield said:

And this whole term of “alive”...

 

An amoeba is “alive”, herpes is “alive”, that spider you stepped on yesterday or that ant you flicked off of your kitchen counter WAS “alive”.

 

Just cause something is “alive” doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to kill something without impunity.

 

A heartbeat means NOTHING.

 

Well I also think the "sanctity of life" argument is rather thin when these saw lawmakers don't seem very keen on the sanctity of life outside of the womb. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro-birth folks, do y'all think the mothers who get abortions should be punished? If we're taking about murder shouldn't they be accessories as well? That's the disconnect with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

But people can't agree on when fetus becomes a life.  Pro-choice side isn't saying that the baby in the womb is a life but kill it anyway.  They are starting from a fundamentally different perspective.  Or at least saying that this is too difficult a question to answer definitively so we'll let individuals make their decisions and leave it up to them.

 

 

It is much easier to justify killing when you deny humanity or question if it is even alive...No doubt

 

The her body and clump of cells lines epitomises that

Share this post


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

 

Well I also think the "sanctity of life" argument is rather thin when these saw lawmakers don't seem very keen on the sanctity of life outside of the womb. 

 

Alabama ranks #46 in State rankings on healthcare, #50 on education, #46 children below the poverty line, teen birth rate #42, child mortality #50

 

Maybe they should start worrying about the kids they have before they start worrying about the ones that were not born.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

 

Alabama ranks #46 in State rankings on healthcare, #50 on education, #46 children below the poverty line, teen birth rate #42, child mortality #50

 

Maybe they should start worrying about the kids they have before they start worrying about the ones that were not born.

 

Well if you force the women to pump out more kids then the numbers go up by default, right?

Share this post


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

 

Well if you force the women to pump out more kids then the numbers go up by default, right?

 

The teen birth one will for sure. The rest will unless they think through the consequences of their policy decision and increase funding for health, education and social programs. I guess we can all bet what's going to happen about that ...

Share this post


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

 

It is much easier to justify killing when you deny humanity or question if it is even alive...No doubt

 

The her body and clump of cells lines epitomises that

 

Well, it could be that pro-life crowd aren't misogynistic neanderthals and and pro-choice crowd aren't sadistic murderers (both my words obviously).  We could all just be arriving at a different conclusion to a very difficult question.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:
Kavanaugh: Hold my beers.

 

He can hold his own.

 

image.jpeg.07b136f8947d227152afcf145fb6d538.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Seems to be this is where rubber meets the road for most people's position on abortion: when to attach humanity to the baby in the womb.  I'm pro-choice, but the exact line seems pretty difficult to draw in my view.

 

That's certainly one way of looking at it. It doesn't have to be the only one. 

 

For example, someone could ask at which point someone can be legally compelled to allow someone else to use their body as a life support system. 

 

I assume most most would agree that I absolutely am a full and complete person. But my personhood does not give society the right to force you to hook some IV tubing between us, so you can function as my dialasys machine. Not even if I will die without it. 

Share this post


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

This allows for abortions at the last minute (and is currently permitted in some states). 

 

Could you please mention some states allow abortions at the last minute, without jumping through all kinds of special restrictions?

Share this post


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

 

Alabama ranks #46 in State rankings on child mortality #50

 

Maybe they should start worrying about the kids they have before they start worrying about the ones that were not born.

 

The Heaven Express Lane!*

 

*Runs parallel to the Robert Jones Golf Trail, I think.

Share this post


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

 

Ok but if we say:

 

1st Trimester: Woman's choice

2nd Trimester: Woman's choice with Doctor consultation

3rd Trimester: medical exception, woman's life in danger, fetus not viable 

 

When I hear "extreme left want women to be able to get an abortion up to the day of birth"  I want to see the statistics on 3rd trimester abortion.  As of the latest data it accounts for 1% of all abortion.  Of that 1% what percentage is women simply changing their minds about wanting to have a baby and walking into Dr. Office demanding an abortion versus some kind of medical issue reason?

 

 

Actually, what I found when I tried to look it up was that 1% was "late term abortions". (Which they hasten to point out isn't defined precisely). And that the majority of those are in the second trimester. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, nonniey said:

From my understanding only a very small percent of that 1 percent involves aborting healthy fetuses from healthy mothers.  Very small depending on sources only 3-10 thousand a year.

 

Are you ok with 3-10 thousand a year?

 

3-10 thousand a year is 0.5-2%. Not "a very small percent of that 1%". 

 

CDC data on US abortions, 2015. (The most recent?  Didn't see any newer). 

 

(CDC says in 2015. 1.5% were performed at week 21 or later. Their FAQ page doesn't break it down further.)

Edited by Larry

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.