|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Sept 14, 2022 1:23:51 GMT
Do you honestly believe that women wake up during their seventh month of pregnancy, and think - "You know what, I really don't want to be pregnant anymore"? Abortions later in pregnancy happen for one of two reasons: either for the health of the mother, or because the fetus has a severe condition or handicap. Also, a baby coming out of a vagina at 9 months is known as a birth - you (ie conservatives) have really got to stop with that scare tactic, lol. When you start imposing these strict abortion "bans", you really enter muddy waters. I'll give you a real world example: a woman is 8 months pregnant and is diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer - she has to start receiving chemo quickly and aggressively if she's going to survive. Chemo is not an option for pregnant women, so what can she do? I am not a conservative. Idk how many times THAT needs to be said also. Your real world example is a fringe example. These rape/incest cases or terminal illness cases make up a fraction of birthing people seeking abortions, and - as I’ve mentioned before - 90% of abortions happen before 15 weeks but you want abortion on demand for everyone because of fringe cases. I don’t support this bill Graham has proposed - I think it should be left up to each state to have that debate internally and decide how they do their abortion laws like we saw in Kansas. Now let me ask you, at what point do you stop and say “no, this far into a pregnancy you can not get an abortion”? Do you think a fully healthy birthing person with a fully healthy baby should be able to terminate their pregnancy 8 months in like so many on your side believe? I keep hearing this argument and it always feels so flimsy. As if every woman who is a victim of rape or incest is admitting to that when they seek an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Sept 14, 2022 2:19:40 GMT
I am not a conservative. Idk how many times THAT needs to be said also. Your real world example is a fringe example. These rape/incest cases or terminal illness cases make up a fraction of birthing people seeking abortions, and - as I’ve mentioned before - 90% of abortions happen before 15 weeks but you want abortion on demand for everyone because of fringe cases. I don’t support this bill Graham has proposed - I think it should be left up to each state to have that debate internally and decide how they do their abortion laws like we saw in Kansas. Now let me ask you, at what point do you stop and say “no, this far into a pregnancy you can not get an abortion”? Do you think a fully healthy birthing person with a fully healthy baby should be able to terminate their pregnancy 8 months in like so many on your side believe? This is my point exactly - abortions that occur in this time period are all “fringe” examples. The right has used these abortions (less than 1% of all abortions that occur) as their only examples of abortions in order to evoke a visceral reaction from their base. My "side" believes that women who are faced with these heart-wrenching scenarios should be allowed to have options. Less than 1% of all abortions are these fringe cases we’re talking about, yes this is a number we agree on. I also essentially said the total percentage of abortions that happen after 15 weeks is 10%. That leaves plenty of cases which are not these “fringe” cases we’ve talked about involving rape/incest/illness. You never answered my question. Should a perfectly healthy woman be able to abort her perfectly healthy baby after 7-8 months? Simple yes or no
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 14, 2022 3:54:31 GMT
This is my point exactly - abortions that occur in this time period are all “fringe” examples. The right has used these abortions (less than 1% of all abortions that occur) as their only examples of abortions in order to evoke a visceral reaction from their base. My "side" believes that women who are faced with these heart-wrenching scenarios should be allowed to have options. Less than 1% of all abortions are these fringe cases we’re talking about, yes this is a number we agree on. I also essentially said the total percentage of abortions that happen after 15 weeks is 10%. That leaves plenty of cases which are not these “fringe” cases we’ve talked about involving rape/incest/illness. You never answered my question. Should a perfectly healthy woman be able to abort her perfectly healthy baby after 7-8 months? Simple yes or no Why dismiss all of Tyler's examples as fringe examples when yours is also one? Do you think late-term abortions are more likely be due to health concerns (either of the mother or baby), or a case of a perfectly healthy woman who couldn't make her mind up until 7 months in? If it's the former, then wouldn't it make more sense not to have a federal ban in place?
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 2,117
|
Post by cherry68 on Sept 14, 2022 7:23:38 GMT
A 15 week ban is in line with 90% of Europe and actually more open then most of those aforementioned European countries who have their bans anywhere between 10-14 weeks. Idk how many times this needs to be said but y’all are just animals who think a woman - excuse me, birthing person - should still be able to abort her, *ahem* their, child 9 months in. Among the masses these late term abortions are just as unpopular as a complete and total ban on abortion no exceptions Do you honestly believe that women wake up during their seventh month of pregnancy, and think - "You know what, I really don't want to be pregnant anymore"? Abortions later in pregnancy happen for one of two reasons: either for the health of the mother, or because the fetus has a severe condition or handicap. Also, a baby coming out of a vagina at 9 months is known as a birth - you (ie conservatives) have really got to stop with that scare tactic, lol. When you start imposing these strict abortion "bans", you really enter muddy waters. I'll give you a real world example: a woman is 8 months pregnant and is diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer - she has to start receiving chemo quickly and aggressively if she's going to survive. Chemo is not an option for pregnant women, so what can she do? A friend of mine, Michela, was 3 months pregnant of her second daughter when she was diagnosed of breast cancer. She decided, together with doctors, to receive a mild chemo and to bring on pregnancy to the 8th month, when she had a scheduled cesarean and gave birth to a wealthy girl. Then she started full chemo. Sadly she died 5 years later, but she never regretted her choice. She wasn't particularly religious btw. Watching her daughters alive was enough to her. To answer your question, after 30 weeks pregnancy cesarean gives the baby good chances to be perfectly healthy. If a woman is diagnosed with a disease, she can give birth to her baby with less risks than having an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Sept 14, 2022 13:37:00 GMT
Less than 1% of all abortions are these fringe cases we’re talking about, yes this is a number we agree on. I also essentially said the total percentage of abortions that happen after 15 weeks is 10%. That leaves plenty of cases which are not these “fringe” cases we’ve talked about involving rape/incest/illness. You never answered my question. Should a perfectly healthy woman be able to abort her perfectly healthy baby after 7-8 months? Simple yes or no Why dismiss all of Tyler's examples as fringe examples when yours is also one? Do you think late-term abortions are more likely be due to health concerns (either of the mother or baby), or a case of a perfectly healthy woman who couldn't make her mind up until 7 months in? If it's the former, then wouldn't it make more sense not to have a federal ban in place? I said just a few posts ago that I do not support a federal ban, that each state should make their own laws. I support what happened in Kansas. Now, do I believe that among the 10% of abortions happening after 15 weeks that most of those are coming in the 30 week range? Probably not, most likely the majority of those post 15 weeks happen in the 20-25 range. Do I think there’s a very vocal subset of people who believe a woman should have free reign to terminate her pregnancy that late if she so pleases? Yes absolutely and I think there’s some among that subset who don’t want to openly state it because they know exactly what they’re supporting. Why is it so hard to say yes or no a woman should/should not be able to terminate a healthy pregnancy very late? It’s not a gotcha, I’m not trying to change any one’s mind. I’m just looking for a straight answer to better understand your opinion and where you’re coming from. Idk about you but the way I see it, supporting abortion on demand even at 8 months is the pro choice equivalent of supporting a complete and total ban no exceptions. These two positions are two sides of the same coin, hence why I said in my original post from yesterday that late term abortions on demand are just as unpopular in the public eye as a complete and total ban with no exceptions, which is true. There’s a reason the pro life movement has picked up steam after the introduction of the ultrasound
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 14, 2022 14:51:11 GMT
Voters really hate when you take things away from them and a 15-week cutoff would remove that healthcare option for women predominantly in blue and purple states. It's a messaging silver bullet for dems.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 14, 2022 15:23:35 GMT
West Virginia law passes:
(CNN)The West Virginia Legislature on Tuesday passed a bill that will prohibit nearly all abortions except to save a pregnant person's life or in certain cases that involve rape or incest.
House Bill 302, passed the state Senate in a 22-7 vote, and the House gave it final approval in a 77-17 vote. The bill, which would significantly curtail access to abortion in a state where it is currently legal up to 20 weeks post-fertilization, now goes to Republican Gov. Jim Justice's desk for signature.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 24, 2022 19:04:56 GMT
Healthcare law in Arizona goes back to the 1880s.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Sept 25, 2022 0:05:16 GMT
Sidebar here, but it's just weird to me how much in the US a single judge can stop a law from going into effect, or the other way around, for the entire state or country.
Here in Brazil, only a Supreme Court one would have that power, and that causes enough chaos as it is (while any judge can say that a law is unconstitutional, that would only apply to that specific case- say someone is being criminally persecuted on the basis of a law, if the judge deems it unconstitutional, only he wouldn't be charged, at least until appeals and/or the Supreme Court say otherwise).
In many other countries, the Judiciary is even more restricted, if they can even say a law is unconstitutional at all.
|
|