The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

It’s still murder tho

Would a compromise up to 15 week abortion national law work? It would still be more progressive than most of Europe?

Yes for me.

That gives (most) woman time to find out their pregnant and do something about it while its a non viable fetus. Most people think or thought abortion should be a scientific litmus test of "when is a fetus viable" ... and we could discuss and debate that.

but now the political hack of the SCOTUS is making the test/question a religious one.

Religion has no place in steering our government or laws. If you agree with that, you should disagree with what the SCOTUS did. If you dont agree with that, you are a cancer to our democracy.

Yes for me.

That gives (most) woman time to find out their pregnant and do something about it while its a non viable fetus. Most people think or thought abortion should be a scientific litmus test of "when is a fetus viable" ... and we could discuss and debate that.

but now the political hack of the SCOTUS is making the test/question a religious one.

Religion has no place in steering our government or laws. If you agree with that, you should disagree with what the SCOTUS did. If you dont agree with that, you are a cancer to our democracy.

95% abortions fall into the 15 week limit. Only exception would be life of the mother with two doctor sign off.

That’s my proposal

I see Biden attacking the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is now ok. Bigly did it, media cried like lil bitches, now silent. Funny how that works

It's a start, I can't get behind being that strict though.

of course not. It's all about finding one exception after another.

That said, I answered your question here is one for you. Can we outlaw abortions regardless of term where the sperm donor and egg donor freely chose to have sex, are financially able to provide for the child (regardless of marital status), and have no life threatening (not quality of life) issues?

of course not. It's all about finding one exception after another.

That said, I answered your question here is one for you. Can we outlaw abortions regardless of term where the sperm donor and egg donor freely chose to have sex, are financially able to provide for the child (regardless of marital status), and have no life threatening (not quality of life) issues?

I was thinking it's more along the lines of finding reasonable compromise, not exceptions.

The choice in the pro choice part of me isn't a big fan of the restrictions you're proposing.

I'm totally fine with someone who is pro life, if that's what works for you.

But in the end I think everyone deserves to make the choice that works best for them vs having options taken away.

I was thinking it's more along the lines of finding reasonable compromise, not exceptions.

The choice in the pro choice part of me isn't a big fan of the restrictions you're proposing.

I'm totally fine with someone who is pro life, if that's what works for you.

But in the end I think everyone deserves to make the choice that works best for them vs having options taken away.

And this is where my problem is, there is a life, that has 0 voice, that will have all of it's options taken away forever if someone doesn't speak for them. In the example I gave, 2 consenting adults, knowing they could conceive, have the ability to care for, and no risk to their life/health, still in your mind can choose to end the victim's life.

Because the unborn child is the victim of their selfish choices at that point.

And this is where my problem is, there is a life, that has 0 voice, that will have all of it's options taken away forever if someone doesn't speak for them. In the example I gave, 2 consenting adults, knowing they could conceive, have the ability to care for, and no risk to their life/health, still in your mind can choose to end the victim's life.

Because the unborn child is the victim of their selfish choices at that point.

If only it was that black and white of a situation. Nothing is ever that clean cut and easy, you know that.

As we start to push towards restricting abortions or outright banning them in a lot of states, in response I'd ask what about universal health care, universal child care, paid leave for parents, etc. What about social service programs like head start, food stamps, heap, are we going to expand those programs too? Don't give me the sanctity of life routine if it doesn't involve actually providing for the kids after they are born. In these areas we have a lot of work to do.

If only it was that black and white of a situation. Nothing is ever that clean cut and easy, you know that.

As we start to push towards restricting abortions or outright banning them in a lot of states, in response I'd ask what about universal health care, universal child care, paid leave for parents, etc. What about social service programs like head start, food stamps, heap, are we going to expand those programs too? Don't give me the sanctity of life routine if it doesn't involve actually providing for the kids after they are born. In these areas we have a lot of work to do.

I am on board with most all of that. Key is how it's paid for obviously. But I think all of it should start from the sanctity of life, or if sanctity offends, then the unique greatness of every life. That doesn't mean that life is fair, or even close to fair, but as much as we can, yes we should provide protection and care for those who are to weak to defend themselves. (I don't include a 21 yo male with no physical handicaps in the concept of being to weak to defend themselves). Sorry if that makes me a radical.

You do realize there are legit medical reasons that may make a late term abortion necessary right? We're not talking about someone walking in and aborting an otherwise perfectly healthy baby just because the woman changed her mind last second. These types of abortions are rare.

Yes we are talking about that.

You know this gets pretty frustrating. I post the same god damn thing every 6 months, showing where you and other posters are wrong on this, just to have you all come back 6 months later with the same mistaken belief about late term abortions.


This is what???, the 3rd or 4th time I've posted this during discussions on late term abortions on who gets them and why (and each time I get "the wow I didn't know about that.")?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

"......However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships. A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually......"

As for Vermont I see someone posted bad info on that as well in a weak attempt to refute what I said.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2019/rpt/pdf/2019-R-0259.pdf
https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/18/223

"Summary
Vermont is one of 13 states that have enacted laws affirmatively declaring a woman’s right to choose an abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, it is the only state, aside from Oregon,that codified the right to abortion without government interference throughout a woman’s pregnancy, instead of only (1) prior to the viability of the fetus or (2) when necessary to protect the woman’s health or life. "

Since this study additional states have passed similar laws including Maryland and New York.


Here is an analogy of what is going on this subject in this forum. You guys are they the dog in the car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muhL7dhUBqs

some again are distorting facts.






https://vtdigger.org/2019/02/15/vermonts-proposed-law-allow-abortions-right-moment-birth/

However, in 2016, the latest year for which abortion data is available, “91.7 percent of all Vermont abortions happened within the first trimester (12 weeks or less) and only 1.3 percent of Vermont abortions occurred in 2016 after 21 weeks.”

Data from the Centers for Disease Control on abortions nationwide in 2015 shows that seven abortions were conducted in Vermont after 21 weeks -- 0.7 percent of all abortions in the state -- but doesn’t give a more specific breakdown for when those procedures were performed.

The medical society added that women do not elect to terminate pregnancies in the final few months, as opponents of H.57, like Coyne, suggest.

“‘Late term’ abortion is a social construct introduced to create an image of an elective abortion that happens closer to 8-9 months, which does not happen and is not a term that is used medically,” the society says.

And even if a woman wanted to abort a pregnancy that late, there are no providers who would do it in Vermont, according to the medical society.

“No abortion providers in Vermont perform elective abortions in the third trimester,” it says.

Lucy Leriche, the vice president of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said the only time when a woman might get an abortion that late in their pregnancy would be “under really severe circumstances for health of mother or because the viability of pregnancy is at risk.”

Doctors who do carry out elective procedures that late in pregnancy, she added, would face dire professional consequences for violating their licensure and committing medical malpractice.

So abortions in the third trimester are exceedingly rare, and don’t occur as elective procedures, but are they legal, as Coyne says?

The law currently before Vermont lawmakers would not legalize such procedures. Hare writes: “In the event that a provider in Vermont knowingly performed a ‘partial-birth abortion’ as it is defined by the Act in violation of that federal statute, the provider could be prosecuted as provided for in the Act, and regardless of the provisions in H.57.”

But as Coyne has pointed out, “partial-birth abortion” does not describe all late-term abortions, and no one disputes that abortions for medical emergencies are legal throughout the pregnancy.