The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

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.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by MTK

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/stat...chapter/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

[Giantone]

some again are distorting facts.






https://vtdigger.org/2019/02/15/verm...-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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by nonniey

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/stat...chapter/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

I apologize for not referring to you on this subject, we have a forum with over 7500 members and over 1.3 million posts covering a wide range of topics, my apologies for not remembering you are the resident abortion expert. In the future all abortion issues will run through you. I was looking at info here

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...-in-pregnancy/

Non-Medical Reasons: Individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy for a number of reasons. As part of the Turnaway study out of the University of California San Francisco, from 2008-2010 over 440 women were asked about why they experienced delays in obtaining abortion care, if any (Figure 2). Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure. This is unsurprising, given abortions can be cost-prohibitive for many; in a study from 2011-2012, the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. Yet the Federal Reserve Board found 40% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds.

Additionally, of all the abortion-providing facilities in the U.S., only 34% offer abortions at 20 weeks and just 16% at 24 weeks, meaning individuals may need to travel a significant distance to find an available, trained provider. Abortions at this stage also typically require two days to complete with inpatient care, as opposed to outpatient or at-home management that is possible earlier in pregnancy.1 In the years since these data were collected, dozens of abortion restrictions have been enacted across the county, including mandated waiting periods; it is therefore possible that individuals seeking abortion today may face even more delays in care than these data reflect.

Fetal Anomalies: Individuals also seek abortions later in pregnancy due to medical reasons. With medical advances, many genetic fetal anomalies can be detected early in pregnancy; for example, chorionic villus sampling can diagnose Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis as earlier as 10 weeks gestation. Structural fetal anomalies, however, are often detected much later in pregnancy. As part of routine care, a fetal anatomy scan is performed around 20 weeks, which entails ultrasound imaging of all the developing organs. Many structural anomalies are discovered at this time that would not have been apparent previously. A proportion of these are lethal fetal anomalies, meaning that the fetus will almost certainly die before or shortly after birth, meaning the fetus may be nonviable.2 In these cases, many individuals wish to terminate their pregnancies, rather than carrying the pregnancy until the fetus or newborn passes away. Very often these pregnancies are desired, making this decision exceedingly difficult for parents. Inadequate data exist to know how many abortions later in pregnancy occur due to fetal anomalies, but a study by Washington University Hospital showed almost all women whose fetuses had lethal fetal anomalies chose to terminate their pregnancies.

A study of maternal fetal medicine (MFM) doctors—specialists who manage pregnancies with fetal anomalies— found most agreed that termination of pregnancy due to a lethal fetal anomaly should be allowed in all circumstances (76%). The majority (75%) discuss abortion as a management option soon after diagnosing a lethal fetal anomaly, but services for terminating pregnancies in these scenarios are limited. Only 40% of MFMs worked at healthcare centers offering abortions past 24 weeks for lethal fetal anomalies. An additional 12% knew of available services <50 miles away.

Health Risk to the Pregnant Person: Life threatening conditions may also develop later in pregnancy. These include conditions like early severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer requiring prompt treatment, and intrauterine infection (chorioamnionitis) often in conjunction with premature rupture of the amniotic sac (PPROM). If these conditions arise before the fetus is viable, the pregnant individual may pursue termination of pregnancy to preserve their own health. If these conditions arise after the fetus is considered viable, Roe v. Wade still protects the right for these individuals to obtain an abortion in cases of health or life endangerment, however it may be difficult to find a provider for this service as previously mentioned. Typically every effort is made to save the life of both the pregnant individual and the fetus, pursuing delivery rather than abortion.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

some again are distorting facts.






https://vtdigger.org/2019/02/15/verm...-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.

I see you still have a reading comprehension problem - eveything I posted said there were very few of these relative (only 1%) to the total number of abortions performed. And now you post an article with stats that show only 1.7% of abortions in Vermont in 2016 were of this type. Brilliant!

Yes only 7 abortions in Vermont fell into this catagory (in 2016) - statistically 4-6 of them were done on healthy women with healthy fetuses (According to Government reports and also the most knowledgeable and quoted source, Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion source I might add).

I stand by my comment that yes the laws making total abortion bans are fucked up, but not as fucked up as the laws that permit this. There are 10-15k (1%) late term abortions each year in the United States, most on healthy fetus's, and you are ok with that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by nonniey

I stand by my comment that yes the laws making total abortion bans are fucked up, but not as fucked up as the laws that permit this. There are 10-15k (1%) late term abortions each year in the United States, most on healthy fetus's, and you are ok with that.

I don't think anyone said they are ok with that, how about we put both situations in the category of being fucked up and call it a day. Don't know why we have to rank them.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by MTK

I don't think anyone said they are ok with that, how about we put both situations in the category of being fucked up and call it a day. Don't know why we have to rank them.

That seems fair.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by MTK

I don't think anyone said they are ok with that, how about we put both situations in the category of being fucked up and call it a day. Don't know why we have to rank them.

All good at least until 6 months from now when once again someone will post that late term abortions are only done to protect the life of the mother or on fetuses with fatal conditions.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

All good at least until 6 months from now when once again someone will post that late term abortions are only done to protect the life of the mother or on fetuses with fatal conditions.

Or someone will ignore the fact that just because the law says one thing finding the Dr. or place that would perform them as an elective procedure don't exist.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

!

Yes only 7 abortions in Vermont fell into this category (in 2016) - statistically 4-6 of them were done on healthy women with healthy fetuses (According to Government reports and also the most knowledgeable and quoted source, Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion source I might add).

.

LOL, "statistically" , you don't know , you assume. You ignore the point that NO place in Vermont will perform the procedure unless it's to protect the life of the mother or on fetuses with fatal conditions.

[MTK]

This wasn't SNL on a Thursday night.

This was Wyoming's Republican primary debate.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

This wasn't SNL on a Thursday night.

This was Wyoming's Republican primary debate.

That's just sad, scary and sad.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Or someone will ignore the fact that just because the law says one thing finding the Dr. or place that would perform them as an elective procedure don't exist.

So you don't believe government studies, abortion clinic reports (they do report their activities to the health department after all) or the Guttmacher Institute??? Why does that not surprise me?

So your response to doctors and abortion clinics saying they did in fact do late term elective abortions is to tell them no they didn't????? Really????