Re: framing the abortion debate
Defend or criticize: "Torturing children and killing unborn babies are both bad things for people to do."
Mod Note: this was excised from the "higher education" thread.
I actually used american sources which list those states as no questions asked in late term.
Btw the source that you don't link and only copy paste, confirm that for new mexico do you realize it yes?
It doesn't for Maryland though.
I ask what your source is though for Maryland because this is just one of the many sources people can easily google which says the opposite
First you are critical that I posted the entire Findlaw page and now you are claiming it’s uncited? Loooooooooooooool.
First you are critical that I posted the entire Findlaw page and now you are claiming it’s uncited? Loooooooooooooool.
So you source claims new mexico allows what you previously thought no state allowed. Abortion of a fetus without any reason other than "the mother wants to" up to day of birth.
Care to admit I was right and you were wrong?
so what do you think of the 7 democrat led states that do allow no question asked abortion till day of birth? they are moral monsters right? and people defending those laws are as well?
This is your position that I am giving you pushback on and my response. I will leave it to others to decide if you were right. Seems to me you had to run the table, 7-0, to be declared the winner here,
Shockingly, I don’t think you are right about pretty much everything you opine about in this forum.
This is your position that I am giving you pushback on and my response. I will leave it to others to decide if you were right. Seems to me you had to run the table, 7-0, to be declared the winner here,
Shockingly, I don’t think you are right about pretty much everything you opine about in this forum.
you contested any place had those rules at all.
btw Maryland allows late term abortion no question asked. the statute linked is about what the Maryland government is not allowed to regulate and limit in any way, doesn't mean it does regulate the last trimester currently even if it legally can.
You should worry about your own lies, rather than those of CNN and MSNBC.
The post above contained your initial statement and my complete. You actually upped it to 9 with this post:
Looks like it's actually 9+ DC now
Alaska Colorado Maryland New Mexico Michigan Minnesota Oregon New Jersey Vermont.
I think Vermont and Alaska joined very recently.
They truly all simply have no limits to abortion in the late term. You can legally abort at 8 months the same you can at one month
Most of the others than ban late term abortion, have exceptions to the ban in late term.
You should worry about your own lies, rather than those of CNN and MSNBC.
The post above contained your initial statement and my complete. You actually upped it to 9 with this post:
it wasn't "my lies", I quoted a source.
an ultra leftist one btw, guttmacher was part of Planned Parenthood and works parallel to it , mainly focusing on data.
I upped to 9 because it was 7 last time I checked (maybe a year ago?) so I cited 7, then I looked around when I talked again about it and it was 9 according to guttmacher so I said 9.
many other sources still have the 7+DC though
additional, Planned Parenthood itself does link to abortion finder which is the source I used to claim that Maryland allows late term abortion no questions asked.
but I suppose Planned Parenthood is a group of fascist liars or something as well
additional, Planned Parenthood itself does link to abortion finder which is the source I used to claim that Maryland allows late term abortion no questions asked.
but I suppose Planned Parenthood is a group of fascist liars or something as well
Im pretty sure that the Planned Parenthood in Lucioumtopia is a fascist group of liars. In America, I doubt it.
Texas Sues for Access to Records of Women Seeking Out-of-State Abortions.
The lawsuit targets medical privacy regulations that were issued in 2000,
and takes aim at a rule issued in April that specifically bans
disclosing medical records for criminal or civil investigations into
“the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating reproductive health care.”
Texas bans abortions in almost all circumstances.
Women are not subject to criminal prosecution for obtaining abortions,
but state law imposes penalties of as much as life in prison for those who aid in obtaining abortions.
demonstrates the lengths that Texas is willing to go to to eliminate abortion
and reproductive health access — not just in Texas, but across the country
I agree this is off topic but I just want to say that leaning on the "morals" of pro life then saying that feeding, clothing, and housing a child is "economic and social policy" is exactly what the **** im talking about
Besides charities, how else are those issues dealt with en masse?
I didn't say that feeding, clothing and housing children is economic and social policy. Those things are aspects of parenting, but policies do affect parents' abilities to provide those things.
You imply the exact same thing when you say that Republicans/conservatives want to stop women from getting abortions but then don't care about the child after it's born. What are you referring to? Obviously it's their positions on social welfare programs, taxes, wages, healthcare, education, etc.
You imply the exact same thing when you say that Republicans/conservatives want to stop women from getting abortions but then don't care about the child after it's born. What are you referring to? Obviously it's their positions on social welfare programs, taxes, wages, healthcare, education, etc.
Yeah, for me its very straightforward. A choice allows births to be like the free market. There will be good and bad outcomes but its a level playing field.
When you force someone to have a child my opinion is that child should be guaranteed a certain standard of life. That means state sponsored child care where food and clothes are provided. Food is provided at schools. Housing programs, jobs or welfare, etc. Those have to be guaranteed otherwise its incredibly irresponsible and amoral to force someone to have a child
From the debate:
"One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government—and Donald Trump, certainly—should not be telling a woman what to do with her body." -Kamala Harris
Quite the projection. Slick phrasing and clearly false.
Yeah, for me its very straightforward. A choice allows births to be like the free market. There will be good and bad outcomes but its a level playing field.
When you force someone to have a child my opinion is that child should be guaranteed a certain standard of life. That means state sponsored child care where food and clothes are provided. Food is provided at schools. Housing programs, jobs or welfare, etc. Those have to be guaranteed otherwise its incredibly irresponsible and amoral to
I definitely get where you're coming from. There's a balancing act between government providing services and establishing policies that put parents in a position to take care of those things on their own. I'm one hundred percent with you when it comes to providing lunch in public schools. When it comes to the other things, of course no kids should grow up homeless or be stuck wearing second-hand clothes. How we go about achieving those goals is probably where we'd find some areas of disagreement. It's also worth mentioning that there are a lot of people who grew up poor that are happy to be alive.
coordi refusing to allow abortion at late stage isn't necessarily forcing the biological parents to then take care of the child.
people should be allowed to renounce the baby at birth and give it up for adoption.
Arizona (with republican majorities in the state Senate and house) just repealed a old anti abortion law.
A couple of republicans joined the democrats in the house and the Senate to achieve that.
Politics still working as normal
Georgia’s ‘pro-life’ abortion ban literally killed a woman
The cause of Amber Thurman’s death was the Republican-led criminalization of healthcare when she
developed a condition that demanded immediate lifesaving attention. The LIFE Act killed Amber Thurman.
make women pay for unwanted pregnancies, even with their lives
28-year-old died a completely avoidable death in a Georgia hospital because the
doctors treating her were terrified of committing a felony under the state’s abortion ban.
The LIFE Act is what happens when single-minded religious zealots seize political power.
performing this normally commonplace and safe procedure a possible felony for the doctors
Georgia’s ‘pro-life’ abortion ban literally killed a woman
The cause of Amber Thurman’s death was the Republican-led criminalization of healthcare when she
developed a condition that demanded immediate lifesaving attention. The LIFE Act killed Amber Thurman.
make women pay for unwanted pregnancies, even with their lives
28-year-old died a completely avoidable death in a Georgia hospital because the
doctors treating her were terrified of committing a felony under the state’s abortion ban.
The LIFE A
Remember when the news at least tried to be objective?
The law — with the dystopian title of Living Infants and Fairness Equality Act, or “LIFE Act” — does has a vague exception to protect the life of the mother. But most exceptions in these laws, reports the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization supporting reproductive rights, “are designed to be unworkable, containing vague and contradictory language and imposing cumbersome requirements.”
Article 5 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to abortion, is amended by revising Code Section 16-12-141, relating to restrictions on the performance of abortions and availability of records, as follows:
(3) 'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.
It's an extremely young sector of state law, as you all know.
The idea that you don't need to agree with but at least understand, is that republicans don't trust pro abortion people, physicians, "experts" in general . They know they would abuse exceptions to allow for abortions that the state wants to keep illegal.
While it's certainly true that the laws are written/applied today in some states will mean some women will risk death, it's very disingenuous to do what people like steamraise do, which is to try to gain some votes for the general, national elections and not giving an actual **** to women living in very red states.
Because if you care about that you propose how to write exceptions in a way that saves lives, but doesn't allow doctors to do abortions that aren't absolutely indispensable to save the life of the mother (if that's the exception lawmakers want in that state).
You don't go "uhh, republicans bad, see women die" unless the reason for the discussion is elections in different states, which it is. I understand a complete lack of morals permeates both parties especially this close to election day but we can go over that in this forum and elsewhere.
Guttmacher tends to be a good enough institution and i think they do work on how to write exceptions better, but that's what the debate should be about in red states. You aren't going to change the basic idea that those states won't allow most abortions.
Funny, Dobbs discussed this “extremely young sector of state law” that dates back to 1803 in its justification to not follow stare decisis. Plus, all states continued to legislate for third trimester abortion after the 1973 Roe decision.
But your logic is the states have no experience legislating incest, rape and health of the mother and couldn’t possibly understand the implications of a total ban?
How to write exceptions for the life of the mother given current medicine technology just happened.
Given roe no such exception was needed when the fetus was small for decades.
The young part is how to write exceptions in a way that both saves women lives and avoids every abortion which can be avoided, which is the stated intent of some red state legislatures which is the contested part.
They consider a fetus a human life worthy of the same rights as any other human life, they can consider it as such under the law, and the fact that you don't doesn't change the problem.
They want to be absolutely certain that no people who disagrees with them can abuse exceptions to kill what they consider human life when it's not absolutely unavoidable to do so to save the mother life.
And they are right not to trust leftists on this to be clear, you guys always act in bad faith in every topic
Because pregnancy has never been a danger to the life of the mother where an abortion is the only answer?
