The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Yeah, sorry. I can’t get down with the idea that it’s perfectly ok to abort a fully formed human.

[LadySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Unless rape, incest, detriment to mother/child PHYSICAL health, or lack of ability for the baby to medically thrive after birth.....that far along, I can’t support that.

I

Personally I don't support that either; however, it's not my pregnancy and not my choice to make. That's what I mean by bodily autonomy, no matter how much people protest that term. Because no one can make these decisions except the pregnant female. And we don't know her circumstances.

Edited June 2, 2019 by LadySkinsFan

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

That’s where you lose me. I was with you up til that point. I consider myself quite liberal and pro-choice. But at some point, you’ve made your choice and that is your decision. And at 9 months you’ve already made 2 solid choices:

 

1 - to have sexual relations that you knew had the risk of pregnancy

2 - to determine you were prego and carry to full term

 

Unless rape, incest, detriment to mother/child PHYSICAL health, or lack of ability for the baby to medically thrive after birth.....that far along, I can’t support that.

 

Just pointing out, there ARE people who come in to the ER, in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

 

I certainly assume that they're really rare. Just saying that it's possible that SOME women who want an abortion at 8 months, haven't had 6 months to decide, before then. 

 

(I certainly ASSUME that the vast majority of women who want abortions at 8 months, there's something that's happened very recently, that's caused that decision. Although, yeah, no doubt there's some where I would say their reason sucks.)

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Larry

[thegreaterbuzzette]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, there ARE people who come in to the ER, in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

And once in labor, abortion should be off the table. 

 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I certainly assume that they're really rare. Just saying that it's possible that SOME women who want an abortion at 8 months, haven't had 6 months to decide, before then. 

At that point, I’m gonna have to say...not an excuse.

 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

(I certainly ASSUME that the vast majority of women who want abortions at 8 months, there's something that's happened very recently, that's caused that decision. Although, yeah, no doubt there's some where I would say their reason sucks.)

Like what? Losing your job, finding out you baby daddy has 3 gfs, etc.....still doesn’t sway me

 

 

its arguements like these that almost sway me pro-life

 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, there ARE people who come in to the ER, in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

 

I certainly assume that they're really rare. Just saying that it's possible that SOME women who want an abortion at 8 months, haven't had 6 months to decide, before then. 

 

(I certainly ASSUME that the vast majority of women who want abortions at 8 months, there's something that's happened very recently, that's caused that decision. Although, yeah, no doubt there's some where I would say their reason sucks.)

So good you had to say it twice 🙂 ????

 

 

[bearrock]

If liberals force the average American to pick between one extreme of no abortion after 8 weeks except for risk to mother's life and abortion for any reason at all up until the moment of birth, they may not like the outcome.  

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If liberals force the average American to pick between one extreme of no abortion after 8 weeks except for risk to mother's life and abortion for any reason at all up until the moment of birth, they may not like the outcome.  

 

Observing that one extreme has already gone well beyond what you've described. And I don't think the other side has gone (quite) that far yet. (But I can see how people might think they're close to it.)

 

- - - -

 

I'll also say, some of the positions I'm pointing out, here, aren't ones that I think should be considered definitive. I just think they're valid points. (And I think there's so many invalid points made, that I try to point out the valid ones.)

18 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

its arguements like these that almost sway me pro-life

 

You don't see a possible logical problem with telling someone "you should have decided sooner", when they didn't know about it, 10 minutes ago? 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Larry

[nonniey]

3 hours ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

.....

Unless rape, incest, detriment to mother/child PHYSICAL health, or lack of ability for the baby to medically thrive after birth.....that far along, I can’t support that.

Yet that is what the Pro-Choice movement (movement as in activists, planned parenthood etc.) supports. Planned parenthood opposes any new measures that may interfere with unlimited/unrestricted abortions and supports efforts to remove restrictions currently in place such as occurred in NY and almost in VA. 

 

Of course places like Alabama help Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice activists by giving them ammunition and cover by passing draconian anti-abortion laws that the vast majority find unreasonable (when the vast majority would find what the Activists/Planned Parenthood support just as draconian and unreasonable,  if they were aware what it is those pro-choice factions actually support). 

 

The fight needs to be over these late term abortions. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by nonniey

[nonniey]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

........ And I don't think the other side has gone (quite) that far yet. (But I can see how people might think they're close to it.)

.......

Vermont was very clear that they have been at that extreme for a long time. And they were so adamant about it they decided to specifically protect that extreme by putting it formally into law just last month.

[Larry]

5 hours ago, nonniey said:

Vermont was very clear that they have been at that extreme for a long time. And they were so adamant about it they decided to specifically protect that extreme by putting it formally into law just last month.

 

You're right.  I was thinking of some other state, which passed a "health of the mother" clause which some people are trying to paint at "no restriction at all".  

[thegreaterbuzzette]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

You're right.  I was thinking of some other state, which passed a "health of the mother" clause which some people are trying to paint at "no restriction at all".  

Even as a pro-choicer.....some of those are purposely very vaguely written. A distinction without a difference. 

 

I believe laws should be clean and clear....to avoid higher court battles. 

[Larry]

16 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

I believe laws should be clean and clear....to avoid higher court battles. 

 

I prefer "did his feet come down in bounds?" to "was he forced out of bounds?"  

 

Edit. 

 

However, I think the decision on "is the mother's health endangered" is more of a medical decision than one where I want a legislature trying to imagine every possible circumstance. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Larry

[thegreaterbuzzette]

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I prefer "did his feet come down in bounds?" to "was he forced out of bounds?"  

 

Edit. 

 

However, I think the decision on "is the mother's health endangered" is more of a medical decision than one where I want a legislature trying to imagine every possible circumstance. 

This is why I like terms like "physical medical issue to the mother/child" or "likelyhood to medically thrive"

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

This is why I like terms like "physical medical issue to the mother/child" or "likelyhood to medically thrive"

 

I can see the validity of arguing over WHICH vague terms to use. 

[nonniey]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

You're right.  I was thinking of some other state, which passed a "health of the mother" clause which some people are trying to paint at "no restriction at all".  

"A distinction without a difference," was an excellent way of putting it. In some states that is exactly what it is, NY being one of them. It's why I argue that it has to be more than one Dr (really more than two - three would be satisfactory imo) that are independent of each other and can't work together routinely (Tiller got in trouble over violating an independent 2 Dr clause in Kansas), and the penalties have to be severe enough to bite for violating procedures.

 

In a world with Gosnells I think that is reasonable.

Edited June 2, 2019 by nonniey

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

In a world with Gosnells I think that is reasonable.

 

I certainly admire the persistence with which you continue to point at a criminal who I'm pretty sure was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned as proof that doctors who follow the law can't be trusted to have any ethics. 

 

Doesn't make any more sense than it did the first time. But boy, I admire your work ethic. 

[nonniey]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I certainly admire the persistence with which you continue to point at a criminal who I'm pretty sure was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned as proof that doctors who follow the law can't be trusted to have any ethics. 

 

Doesn't make any more sense than it did the first time. But boy, I admire your work ethic. 

Do you think he is unique - that there is no possible way that there can be any other unethical Doctor out there? Many (maybe most) of the charges brought against him in Pennsylvania couldn't have been brought against him in Vermont or now in NY. Is what you want the legalization or continued legalization of much of what Gosnell routinely did?

Edited June 2, 2019 by nonniey

[The Evil Genius]

So what's the over/under on late term abortions a year in the US that aren't necessitated by a negative health impact to the mother if the fetus is carried to term?

 

Let's talk real numbers here. CDC stats show in 2015 that there were roughly 6k abortions (roughly 1.3% of all abortions) that came after week 21 of pregnancy.

 

Those stats don't state reasons why the abortions occurred. 

 

Is there a thinking that a large portion of those 6k weren't for medical reasons?

Edited June 2, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[twa]

22 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what's the over/under on late term abortions a year in the US that aren't necessitated by a negative health impact to the mother if the fetus is carried to term?

 

Let's talk real numbers here. CDC stats show in 2015 that there were roughly 6k abortions (roughly 1.3% of all abortions) that came after week 21 of pregnancy.

 

Those stats don't state reasons why the abortions occurred. 

 

Is there a thinking that a large portion of those 6k weren't for medical reasons?

 

 

not to quibble, but....

 

Quote

 

 The most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on total abortions and late-term abortions suggests that approximately 1.3% of abortions are carried out at 21 weeks of gestation and above. The true percentage is likely even higher, as 12 reporting areas are not reflected in the CDC’s estimate. These reporting areas account for more than half of all abortions performed in the United States, and all but one permit abortion on demand after 20 weeks. 

https://lozierinstitute.org/questions-and-answers-on-late-term-abortion/

 

 

the reality is we have no good figures on medical procedures that end a human life.

 

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/

 

 

Quote

 

Who Seeks Late-term Abortion?

 

To explore the characteristics of women who choose abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Foster and Kimport used data from a larger abortion study, currently being conducted at the University of California, San Francisco.  Interview and questionnaire data from over 400 women were gathered from 16 facilities that offer abortion procedures after 20 weeks gestation.   A significant limiting factor of the study is the fact that the authors excluded women who sought abortion for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment, without commenting on how large of a cohort this represented.  Another significant limiting factor of the study is that only 44% of the eligible women participated (eligibility defined as women who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks gestation for reasons other than life endangerment or fetal anomaly), leaving room for significant selection bias.[12]

 

 

[nonniey]

51 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what's the over/under on late term abortions a year in the US that aren't necessitated by a negative health impact to the mother if the fetus is carried to term?

 

Let's talk real numbers here. CDC stats show in 2015 that there were roughly 6k abortions (roughly 1.3% of all abortions) that came after week 21 of pregnancy.

 

Those stats don't state reasons why the abortions occurred. 

 

Is there a thinking that a large portion of those 6k weren't for medical reasons?

Well seen different stats but for the sake of argument lets say everyone but one was a legitimate serious/critical  health issue - should it be legal to abort that one child?

 

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what's the over/under on late term abortions a year in the US that aren't necessitated by a negative health impact to the mother if the fetus is carried to term?

 

Let's talk real numbers here. CDC stats show in 2015 that there were roughly 6k abortions (roughly 1.3% of all abortions) that came after week 21 of pregnancy.

 

Those stats don't state reasons why the abortions occurred. 

 

Is there a thinking that a large portion of those 6k weren't for medical reasons?

 

The thing I read from the CDC (or it may have been the news article about the stats) pointed out that there's some things about the stats. 

 

For one thing, the stat lists abortions at 21 weeks plus. But it's not even third trimester (when the government can start regulating it, according to Roe), till week 24(?). 

 

And i think it was the article I'd read said that many of those cases, the reason for the late abortions was "my state makes it so tough to get an abortion, I had to spend months saving up for a trip out of state, to get one."

[thegreaterbuzzette]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what's the over/under on late term abortions a year in the US that aren't necessitated by a negative health impact to the mother if the fetus is carried to term?

 

Let's talk real numbers here. CDC stats show in 2015 that there were roughly 6k abortions (roughly 1.3% of all abortions) that came after week 21 of pregnancy.

 

Those stats don't state reasons why the abortions occurred. 

 

Is there a thinking that a large portion of those 6k weren't for medical reasons?

Here's my thing. If the logic is that it "never happens" and its "always" for medical reasons.....then why not put that firmer language explicitly in the bill?

[LadySkinsFan]

What these people are after is not only the outlawing of abortion altogether, the next step is labeling birth control as abortifacients and outlawing them too. They want to roll back to before the "Margaret Sanger" decision that legalized birth control methods. More forced pregnancies will be the result. 

 

Do you want legislatures telling you that you can't use any type of birth control?  

[twa]

Speaking for myself, I support birth control and even the availability of 'real' abortifacients with Dr's consultation..

 

guess I'm pro choice?

[thegreaterbuzzette]

On 6/2/2019 at 1:36 PM, LadySkinsFan said:

What these people are after is not only the outlawing of abortion altogether, the next step is labeling birth control as abortifacients and outlawing them too. They want to roll back to before the "Margaret Sanger" decision that legalized birth control methods. More forced pregnancies will be the result. 

 

Do you want legislatures telling you that you can't use any type of birth control?  

I think the # of folks that truly want that is just as small as those that want recreational abortions at 9 months.

 

Again, until people are ready for real discussions and negotiations and stop with these extremist mentalities.....nothing gets solved. 

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't think it's extreme for females to control their bodies. I may not agree with every individual decision made, it's not my place or anyone else including governments. That's my position.

 

And if you don't think that these legislatures passing these laws don't have outlawing birth control as the next item in their control of females list, you need to read more. The main goal is to increase the white birthrate so whites don't become a minority. Look at the states passing these laws and the increase of white supremacy numbers and actions.