Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Complete BS. A plan to strike down Roe v Wade has been on the official republican platform for decades. Maaaaybe the lack of a rape/incest provision in Alabama was a response to democrats in other states. But the other states are doing what republican voters want them to do. This is who they are, frankly.
    Why now? Why not, say, in the last several decades?
    Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

    "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
      Why now? Why not, say, in the last several decades?
      There haven't been anti-abortion bills passed in states that have been overruled in courts? Didn't at least one go up to the supreme court after Roe?

      I guess if your argument is that there have always been anti-abortion laws passed, but not as crazy as this crop, I can't argue against that. But still, in the past there have been laws banning second-trimester abortions, requirements to disseminate false health info to women, etc. There's been a steady history of anti-abortion sentiment.
      "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
      "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
      - SeattleUte

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
        I'm pretty pro-life. I fully support rape, incest, and risk to life (mom or baby exceptions), and I have no problem with the mom making that call up to the point of viability.

        These new bills going through the states' legislatures are in direct response to the Democrats' overreaches earlier in the year in NY and VA. If they could have left well enough alone, then Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio wouldn't be acting like idiots.
        Oh brother. It isn't reactionary to those laws at all. It is a reaction to Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. You have another damn near guaranteed vote to finding an abortion law constitutional. A wild card in Kennedy is off the court and they are going to strike now. The only possible change to the supreme court in the near future is Ginsburg if she dies. She also might hold on until Trump is out so that vote may not change anyway.
        As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
        --Kendrick Lamar

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
          Why now? Why not, say, in the last several decades?
          The composition of the court is the best it has been in decades for a challenge to Roe v. Wade and Casey.
          https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-legislatures/

          “What I’m trying to do here is get this case in front of the Supreme Court so Roe v. Wade can be overturned,” Republican Alabama state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the abortion ban legislation, said in an interview with The Washington Post.
          Last edited by MartyFunkhouser; 05-16-2019, 04:22 PM.
          As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
          --Kendrick Lamar

          Comment


          • I think it's a little of both.

            I think there are some who are super excited about the Trump supreme court appointees and can't wait to challenge Roe V Wade. Trump himself, as I recall, has talked about the supreme court changing Roe V Wade.

            So I think that the laws themselves are a response to the new make up of the court and are intended to challenge Roe V Wade. But I also think that some states have over-reacted to the laws going the other direction allowing fetuses to be aborted the day they are born. Almost one-upping them, to a degree.

            What would be interesting is if the Supremes were to say "you're all right - this is a state issue, and ya'll can do what you want". Such extreme laws from one state to the next, no one is happy.

            What I hope happens is that some reasoning takes place that allows for abortion in certain circumstances (circumstances referring to timing, situation, etc.), but not on demand at 40 weeks. Things have gone off the rails both directions and I'm hoping the supreme court and get us to a better place for both sides.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
              Oh brother. It isn't reactionary to those laws at all. It is a reaction to Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. You have another damn near guaranteed vote to finding an abortion law constitutional. A wild card in Kennedy is off the court and they are going to strike now. The only possible change to the supreme court in the near future is Ginsburg if she dies. She also might hold on until Trump is out so that vote may not change anyway.
              Timeline is this: Trump elected; Justice Kennedy retires; Kavanagh is nominated; Left reacts with batshit crazy legislation in NY and VA; batshit crazy Democrats advocate genocide on national TV/radio; batshit crazy Republicans pass zero-exception anti-abortion bills.

              I am of the opinion that the political will and desire by the Repbulicans comes from the indifference to human life and genocide advocated by the Dems after Kennedy's retirement. If the Dems could have held off on advocating infanticide, you get your standard "parents must provide permission" statutes in the states (or something similar).
              Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

              "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                Utah AG announces he will not prosecute utah’s new anti-abortion law. Says it is likely unconstitutional so it is a waste of time.

                These dualing abortion laws (full-term OK in liberal states, severely restriction in conservative states) are dumb. I am a broken record, but politics are broken right now. God help us.
                This is similar to how we let 2nd amendment debates be framed by arguments between proponents of gun confiscation and those who think everyone should be able to own a tank. 70% of americans can agree on major points in these debates. It is so frustrating that we let the radical fringes guide the conversation.

                Comment


                • One thing that may help with civil discourse is not using terms like Democrats are advocating for genocide.
                  As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                  --Kendrick Lamar

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
                    Timeline is this: Trump elected; Justice Kennedy retires; Kavanagh is nominated; Left reacts with batshit crazy legislation in NY and VA; batshit crazy Democrats advocate genocide on national TV/radio; batshit crazy Republicans pass zero-exception anti-abortion bills.

                    I am of the opinion that the political will and desire by the Repbulicans comes from the indifference to human life and genocide advocated by the Dems after Kennedy's retirement. If the Dems could have held off on advocating infanticide, you get your standard "parents must provide permission" statutes in the states (or something similar).
                    The only batshit crazy law abortion law is the current Alabama ones. I don't love the NY or VA laws, but they aren't batshit crazy.

                    If you really want to talk about indifference to human life, the law that demonstrates the must indifference to human life is the Alabama one.
                    As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                    --Kendrick Lamar

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
                      The only batshit crazy law abortion law is the current Alabama ones. I don't love the NY or VA laws, but they aren't batshit crazy.

                      If you really want to talk about indifference to human life, the law that demonstrates the must indifference to human life is the Alabama one.
                      :eyeroll:

                      If a doctor can deliver a fullterm baby and either intentionally end its life or allow the baby to die based on the standardless decision of the mother (which is what I understand the NY law to have done; and the proposed VA law would have allowed), I'm going to call that not only batshit crazy, but also homicidal.

                      I disagree with the AL law. But I don't think a person can argue with a straight face and a fully functioning brain that forcing a woman to carry a child (even under horrific circumstances) is less humane than slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal (which is my real beef with the NY law). Sorry, chief.
                      Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

                      "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
                        :eyeroll:

                        If a doctor can deliver a fullterm baby and either intentionally end its life or allow the baby to die based on the standardless decision of the mother (which is what I understand the NY law to have done; and the proposed VA law would have allowed), I'm going to call that not only batshit crazy, but also homicidal.

                        I disagree with the AL law. But I don't think a person can argue with a straight face and a fully functioning brain that forcing a woman to carry a child (even under horrific circumstances) is less humane than slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal (which is my real beef with the NY law). Sorry, chief.
                        Here's a different reading of the NY law:

                        As discussed above, third-trimester abortions — after the 24th week of pregnancy — are only permitted if it's necessary to protect the mother's life or health or there's an "absence of fetal viability."

                        Nationwide, such late-term abortions are rare: About 1.3 percent of all abortions came after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention....

                        The new state law leaves it up to the mother's health-care provider to "use their reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case."

                        Opponents of the new law, like Dolan, say the health exception would allow late-term abortions for almost any reason.

                        But the health exception isn't new: It's required by Roe v. Wade, even when a woman is late in her term. Still, many abortion providers in New York were hesitant to use the exception since prior state law only included an exception for the mother's life.
                        https://www.democratandchronicle.com...do/2743142002/

                        I am missing the provision of 'slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal'...
                        "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                        "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                        - SeattleUte

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
                          :eyeroll:

                          If a doctor can deliver a fullterm baby and either intentionally end its life or allow the baby to die based on the standardless decision of the mother (which is what I understand the NY law to have done; and the proposed VA law would have allowed), I'm going to call that not only batshit crazy, but also homicidal.

                          I disagree with the AL law. But I don't think a person can argue with a straight face and a fully functioning brain that forcing a woman to carry a child (even under horrific circumstances) is less humane than slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal (which is my real beef with the NY law). Sorry, chief.
                          You misunderstand the NY law.
                          https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240
                          As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                          --Kendrick Lamar

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                            Here's a different reading of the NY law:



                            https://www.democratandchronicle.com...do/2743142002/

                            I am missing the provision of 'slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal'...
                            I'd also be interested in where that provision exists as argued by GM.
                            As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                            --Kendrick Lamar

                            Comment


                            • if true evil exists in this world, it exists in cases of discretionary abortion for convenience and unwanted pregnancy. sickening.
                              Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                                if true evil exists in this world, it exists in cases of discretionary abortion for convenience and unwanted pregnancy. sickening.
                                Not sure if this is typical sarcastic OG or not...
                                "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                                "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                                - SeattleUte

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X