Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? (Page 3): Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Apr 12, 19 11:51

Runguy wrote:

so ridiculous that a baby is given birth (botched abortion, whatever the reason) is delivered and then for almost any reason they can kill the child. you, sir, are one cold human being.

Not this shit again. Infanticide is not legal. No, the change in the law didn't make it legal.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [trail] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Runguy

Apr 12, 19 11:57

Post #52 of 65 (530 views)

trail wrote:

Runguy wrote:

so ridiculous that a baby is given birth (botched abortion, whatever the reason) is delivered and then for almost any reason they can kill the child. you, sir, are one cold human being.

Not this shit again. Infanticide is not legal. No, the change in the law didn't make it legal.

i'm referring to virginia, not ny

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

trail

Apr 12, 19 12:00

Post #53 of 65 (524 views)

Runguy wrote:

i'm referring to virginia, not ny

I think it's the same story there. Particularly the Federal part.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

j p o

Apr 12, 19 12:02

Post #54 of 65 (523 views)

Runguy wrote:

trail wrote:

Runguy wrote:

so ridiculous that a baby is given birth (botched abortion, whatever the reason) is delivered and then for almost any reason they can kill the child. you, sir, are one cold human being.

Not this shit again. Infanticide is not legal. No, the change in the law didn't make it legal.

i'm referring to virginia, not ny

That doesn't make you less wrong.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

chaparral

Apr 12, 19 12:08

Post #55 of 65 (519 views)

Runguy wrote:

chaparral wrote:

Runguy wrote:

chaparral wrote:

Runguy wrote:

j p o wrote:

DeWine’s signature makes Ohio the fifth state to ban abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat. That can come as early as five or six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant.

How much more evidence do you need?

as compared to Virginia allowing fanticide?

Virginia allows the killing of Fanta?

corrected, infanticide

Ahh, so you still claiming something just as wrong and just as ridiculous. Got it. fanticide was funnier, stick with that next time.

so ridiculous that a baby is given birth (botched abortion, whatever the reason) is delivered and then for almost any reason they can kill the child. you, sir, are one cold human being.

Well, that is not what is happening, that is why you are being ridiculous.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [j p o] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Buster Scrugs

Apr 12, 19 12:13

Post #56 of 65 (515 views)

j p o wrote:

orphious wrote:

j p o wrote:

orphious wrote:

Good read that really doesnt take a side on the issue.. It answers Barry's question above.. Yes I looked it up becasue I did not know:

https://drjengunter.com/...n-the-united-states/

edited to remove the chart they had in the article.. didnt format well to the post

Abortion is an issue that always makes me hate all politicians. No one is trying to come to a reasonable solution with an honest discussion using actual facts. Both sides want this issue out there in the news because there is too much money to be made off of it.

Once you eliminate the extremes of never under any circumstances and any time prior to birth I think everyone else could come to a reasonable and coherent agreement if that would settle it once and for all. But you can't get reasonable people to agree because both sides know that the extremes are going to keep pushing for total victory and any ground given won't be the end of the argument but just the new starting point for trying to make more gains.

I am pretty pro choice, but I can agree to a hard limit of when bilateral brain activity takes place (22'ish weeks). And if it would resolve it permanently I could easily agree to 4 - 6 weeks earlier. By 16 to 20 weeks it is hard to claim you didn't know you were pregnant and at some point you have to be responsible for bringing the fetus to term even if you have a really good excuse, at some point it has to be on you to know.

But I don't think any of the leaders of either side of this issue would think of making that agreement. It is all about the Benjamins.

I am pretty anti-abortion but I could compromise on some the issues surrounding it. I don't know what I would be willing to compromise on though becasue I am pretty torn about it. On one hand I think a woman should have the right to choose but on the other, the baby has no choice in the matter at all. I hear people bring up instances like what about incest and rape.. I could agree there but those instances like late term abortions... are very rare. What I am vehemently opposed to (and this might have been brought up already) is people using abortion as a form of birth control. I could be wrong but I am of the opinion that is what the majority of abortions are used for. Again.. that's just my gut feeling and I have no stats to back that up.

If we take the position that abortion is wrong at some point during the pregnancy because of concerns for the fetus. Whether that is at conception or 35 weeks, the source of the pregnancy isn't really relevant. The fetus wasn't responsible for its oranges. Either it is a life and needs preserved or it isn't.

But if the real issue is that you are opposed to sex without consequences, then the issues of non-consensual conception come into play.

My position revolves around when the fetus becomes a person. We use the standards around brain activity to decide when we can pull the plug on you and I, I extrapolate that to the fetus. So from my perspective, there is no need for rape and incest exceptions. Once the fetus possibly becomes a person, you need to protect it, no matter the source. Prior to that point, you can abort it, again, no matter the source.

I believe the life should always be preserved. Weather that it is a life at the first detectable brain wave seems reasonable but debatable and should be where a compromise could be reached. Even though I am anti-abortion, I don't necessarily think it should be illegal either. But like you and others have pointed out.. the extremists at both ends will never allow the compromise.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [j p o] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Moonrocket

Apr 12, 19 12:31

Post #57 of 65 (497 views)

j p o wrote:

Or could it be that abortion isn't the issue? The real demon for them is sex without consequences for women. Female Sport fucking drives them nuts.

Fixed it for you.

Nobody cares about men having sex with anybody. Pregnant third wife at home and banging a porn star- you’ve got the religious vote!

Girl who got pregnant- you should definitely be doomed to a life in poverty.

Nobody ever says anything about the male that was just as involved.

Look at the Catholic Church- mother and baby homes to keep pregnant girls unseen-but the guys who knocked them up still took communion every week.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Justgeorge

Apr 12, 19 12:44

Post #58 of 65 (483 views)

scorpio516 wrote:

If one of their granddaughters got pregnant, they'd ship them off to New York or Europe for a safe abortion.
If a poor girl in Toledo got pregnant, she could still go to Michigan, for now.
If a poor girl in Columbus or Cincinnati gets pregnant, she's got two options: become a bigger draw on the state with welfare, WIC, etc. or find an unsafe abortion.

Take a geography lesson, Cincinnati is a river crossing away from Kentucky. And there are lots of bridges.

I miss YaHey

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Justgeorge] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

scorpio516

Apr 12, 19 12:54

Post #59 of 65 (465 views)

Justgeorge wrote:

scorpio516 wrote:

Take a geography lesson, Cincinnati is a river crossing away from Kentucky. And there are lots of bridges.

I know what I wrote.

Your acting like Kentucky hasn't already passed a 6-week law too. Or passed a 15 week law last year. Or passed a law requiring ALL doctors to show ALL patients pictures even if both object two years ago.

Cincinnati and Louisville are on the Ohio river. Lexington is due south on I-75.

(yes a judge has temporarily put a hold on the 6 week law in KY, but they passed and signed it in March. The 15 week law has a temp hold too pending litigation)

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Justgeorge] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

ubdawg

Apr 12, 19 13:33

Post #60 of 65 (442 views)

Justgeorge wrote:

scorpio516 wrote:

Take a geography lesson, Cincinnati is a river crossing away from Kentucky. And there are lots of bridges.

For some reason you thought you were going to get a good burn it.

But Scorpio strolls calmly back in and puts out that blaze.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [efernand] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Ozymandias

Apr 12, 19 13:59

Post #61 of 65 (423 views)

efernand wrote:

Quote:

No. Not even close to reality. No one is ever going to abort minutes before delivery because they changed their mind.
Why this is such a hard concept to grasp is beyond me. It is so outrageous to believe such a thing, I can't believe anybody believes it. So I choose to believe they are being intentionally misleading.

Then why change the laws to allow it?

Read my post before it. Better yet, read the actual laws. They simply trued up existing laws at a state level to the protections already afforded by Roe v Wade. Yes, the reason for doing so is cynical. But nothing changed, and it won't have an impact on anything. I don't know how anybody with a six grade or higher education could read the changes in law and believe it enables infanticide. In fact, it states that legit medical reasons are required for said abortions. THe rightwing argument, which I hear all the time at republican meetings and in my talking points is that it loosens the definition of medical conditions permitting abortion and extends the tie frame. The changes do no such thing. Babies born post 22 weeks MUST still get life saving efforts unless the doctor deems they are not warranted and the parent has superseding authority.

Sorry, my team is wrong on this and being misleading. At the same time, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere, so there really wasn't much point to create drama over it.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Trispoke

Apr 12, 19 14:41

Post #62 of 65 (408 views)

Runguy wrote:

trail wrote:

Runguy wrote:

so ridiculous that a baby is given birth (botched abortion, whatever the reason) is delivered and then for almost any reason they can kill the child. you, sir, are one cold human being.

Not this shit again. Infanticide is not legal. No, the change in the law didn't make it legal.

i'm referring to virginia, not ny

you keep quoting VA but I am curious if you actually know what is legal in the state and what the proposal does.

1) Can you currently get a late term abortion in the state of VA? If not, why? If so, under what circumstances?
2) What is the status of the proposal? Is it signed into law?

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Trispoke] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

chaparral

Apr 12, 19 14:43

Post #63 of 65 (406 views)

Trispoke wrote:

Runguy wrote:

trail wrote:

Runguy wrote:

so ridiculous that a baby is given birth (botched abortion, whatever the reason) is delivered and then for almost any reason they can kill the child. you, sir, are one cold human being.

Not this shit again. Infanticide is not legal. No, the change in the law didn't make it legal.

i'm referring to virginia, not ny

Hey is not talking about late term abortion. He is saying that Virginia made it legal to kill the infant after it is born. He actually thinks that is somehow legal.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [Ozymandias] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

efernand

Apr 12, 19 14:45

Post #64 of 65 (404 views)

Quote:

Read my post before it. Better yet, read the actual laws. They simply trued up existing laws at a state level to the protections already afforded by Roe v Wade. Yes, the reason for doing so is cynical. But nothing changed, and it won't have an impact on anything. I don't know how anybody with a six grade or higher education could read the changes in law and believe it enables infanticide. In fact, it states that legit medical reasons are required for said abortions. THe rightwing argument, which I hear all the time at republican meetings and in my talking points is that it loosens the definition of medical conditions permitting abortion and extends the tie frame. The changes do no such thing. Babies born post 22 weeks MUST still get life saving efforts unless the doctor deems they are not warranted and the parent has superseding authority.
Sorry, my team is wrong on this and being misleading. At the same time, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere, so there really wasn't much point to create drama over it.

I never claimed it enabled infanticide, unless you call a last minute (still in the womb) abortion infanticide.

Even though it didn't pass, the proposed changes to the VA law were the clearest; It removed language that required 3 doctors to agree, and it removed language that said that the physical or mental impairments must be substantial and irremediable.

So, it it's proposed state, it would have allowed abortion at any time (ie up to birth), so long as 1 doctor agrees that there is risk of any physical or mental impairment.

Quote Reply

Re: Remember how some here claimed Republicans weren't going to try to ban abortion? [efernand] [ In reply to ]

Quote | Reply

Moonrocket

Apr 12, 19 15:13

Post #65 of 65 (388 views)

efernand wrote:

Quote:

Read my post before it. Better yet, read the actual laws. They simply trued up existing laws at a state level to the protections already afforded by Roe v Wade. Yes, the reason for doing so is cynical. But nothing changed, and it won't have an impact on anything. I don't know how anybody with a six grade or higher education could read the changes in law and believe it enables infanticide. In fact, it states that legit medical reasons are required for said abortions. THe rightwing argument, which I hear all the time at republican meetings and in my talking points is that it loosens the definition of medical conditions permitting abortion and extends the tie frame. The changes do no such thing. Babies born post 22 weeks MUST still get life saving efforts unless the doctor deems they are not warranted and the parent has superseding authority.
Sorry, my team is wrong on this and being misleading. At the same time, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere, so there really wasn't much point to create drama over it.

What do you think is the benefit of having three doctors consult and agree on what is probably the worst day of a woman’s life? All of the evidence is that people seeking late term abortions are usually couples who desperately want a baby who have either had a devastating potentially fatal medical diagnosis for themselves or their baby. Please explain why making them talk this through with three doctors makes the situation better.

Quote Reply

Poll

Lavender Room

Our Partners

Poll

Lavender Room

Our Partners

Newsletter