Anyone else watching this? [W:500]

[choiceone]

For no one to be wanting an abortion, there certainly plenty of people doing what creates the need for it. If they really didn't want abortion, they would make sure they didn't end up pregnant. I'm pro-choice, but to say that nobody wants it either means that a lot of people are stupid, or that they want the option, and are willing to take their chances. That doesn't seem very smart to me. If you REALLY don't want an abortion, you avoid getting pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. And yes, I realize that birth control isn't 100% effective, but it's pretty damn close, if you are smart enough to use it correctly.

A lot of people are stupid. When I was younger, I noticed stupid people the more, the more educated I got. Now, I notice stupid people the more, the more months are added to my age. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Those people make a distinction between biological human organisms without personhood and actual living persons. That's why.

Personhood isn't a biological term. It's a term people like you made up to justify killing the unborn. There's nothing about the birthing process that magically gives life to a child, it became a person long before that.

 

[choiceone]

Yeah, I really don't understand why people take such issue with contraception while opposing abortion. Naturally we all probably agree that kids should hiold off on having sex until they can make mature decisions, and preferably do it in a manner that is responsible, but we don't even see that as a universal in adulthood

They want women to be punished for having sex.

 

[choiceone]

I think the issue is that abortion clinics, that don't even perform anything akin to surgery, would also fall under these stricter guidelines. Naturally after Gosnell, there is a clear public interest in greater oversight, regulation, and inspection of abortion facilities that perform invasive procedures, but it makes little sense to extend that to clinics simply handing out something like the Morning after pill

It makes little sense to extend it to clinics that perform first term abortions and provide RU486, because a medical/chemical abortion is not even done in the clinic. The clinic does an exam to know whether or not the pregnancy is ectopic and thus has to be treated in a special way. If the pregnancy is not ectopic, it prescribes medical/chemical abortion medication, which the woman can take at home according to directions and call in if she has any kind of adverse reaction. If she needs to go to a hospital, a great rarity, that can be arranged via the clinic, but the woman is not in the clinic and the clinic doctor would not need to be at the hospital. The complications from RU486 are rare and easily treated.

 

[VanceMack]

Unfortunately, the 20 weeks ban would also disallow abortion in cases where the fetus looks like this: THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Quick...which case would be considered 'normal'? And in the cases you cited would it matter if it was 10 weeks, 20 weeks, or even full term? Didnt think so. But hey...nice approach to future world! We could do a cleansing...eliminate ALL unwanted traits and characteristics.

 

[choiceone]

And how about this falsifying of computer records? I still don't understand why I'm the only person who seems to be upset about this, and I'm not even American or in America.

Put the abortion thing to one side and look at what just happened: They were trying to pass a law by a certain time period, they failed, so they falsified voting records in a clear attempt to bypass the legal process. Isn't that illegal? Isn't it something that people should be upset about, whether they support abortion or not?

I don't understand why this isn't a big deal, why no one is being arrested, why people aren't outraged.

This is how Republicans are now. The truth is, it was a slow transformation of a once great political party into a party dominated by crooks, kooks, and liars. When they actually reached the point in the US House of Representatives that they were going to let the nation default on its debt, for the first time, I was willing to entertain extreme hypotheses about what happened, including even conspiracy theories and the theory that large numbers of Republicans contracted a brain virus that was making them go insane. I'm sure the Democrats are outraged, at least a lot of them, but the anti-abortion people want to pass anti-abortion laws so much that they would violate just about any law to do it. Insane.

 

[VanceMack]

Of course it should be rare. The ideal is for no woman to get pregnant if she does not want to get pregnant. No accidental pregnancies. Hence, if unwanted pregnancies are eliminated by contraception and Plan B as plan b, the only abortions that will occur will be those where Plan B fails, where rape victims have been held captive after rape and have no access to Plan B, where the pregnancy is ectopic, where there is a gross fetal anomaly or seriously disabled fetus, and where the life or major health functions of the woman are seriously threatened, etc.

SO what you are suggesting is that for the vast majority of pregnancies that occur. persons a and/or b should be personally responsible and accountable for their actions in preventing a pregnancy.

But once they are pregnant...the vast majority of the time because they were stupid reckless and irresponsible...what is the downside of slaughtering the unborn? Why should it matter if it was a 'rare' practice?

 

[choiceone]

When there's demand, there will be supply. Abortion is a big business with a lot of money. If so many hospitals have managed to survive a sea of regulations, so can abortion doctors.

Why you think abortion should be completely devoid of all regulation while everything else is regulated to the bone is beyond me.

At 20 weeks you're scraping at the lower boundry of vitality. Aborting past that point is killing a child that would otherwise most likely live.



If it were up to me I'd make it 8 weeks, but I am willing to compromise as high as 12 for elective abortions. Serious medical cases for the mother should be allowed at any point, and abortions because of deformities of the child should be allowed in only very serious cases.



I just chuckle audibly at random times throughout the day as I ponder the irony of liberals trying to limit government control. Oh you silly kids, just yesterday you wanted their corrupt fingers in every nook and cranny of our bodies and lives.

You really do us liberals a disservice. There is a very strong social libertarian strand on the left as on the right. If the Republican party and its candidates adopted the Libertarian party's views on both abortion and gay marriage, there could be quite a lot of crossover voting especially of youth. A few years ago in Illinois, the gubernatorial race featured a pro-choice Republican and an anti-choice Democrat. Had I lived there, the GOP guy would have had my vote.

 

[choiceone]

Calling childbearing the same as rape tells me you have absolutely no idea what rape means.

So if any woman carrying a baby wakes up one day and doesn't want the baby anymore, it's immediately raping her. Classic.

1) I did not say childbearing is the same as rape. I said that in an unwanted pregnancy, where the zygote~fetus is inside and biologically attaching to the woman's uterus without her consent and against her will, if the zygote is legally defined as a person with equal rights to a born person, it is legally raping/sexually assaulting her, because its behavior in the context of the woman's lack of consent fits the legal definition of rape/sexual assault. But of course, I don't believe for a moment that a zygote~fetus is a person with equal rights - I believe it is living as an extension of her body's life.

2. I have been forcibly raped, thank you. I know exactly what rape means.

3. A baby is by definition born in my dialect of English.

4. A woman's continuous consent to pregnancy is necessary up to viability, by law and in my view.

 

[choiceone]

Personhood isn't a biological term. It's a term people like you made up to justify killing the unborn. There's nothing about the birthing process that magically gives life to a child, it became a person long before that.

No, personhood was not made up by people like me. Personhood is a philosophical and legal concept deriving from the word person, which is used in the Constitution and in federal and state law. In the Constitution, it clearly refers to born human beings, because none of the uses there applies with any assurance to the unborn. Various federal court cases clarify this fact.

As long as the fetus remains inside the woman's body, the government has no right to know that it exists because the government has no right to know whether or not a woman is pregnant. The government has only a very narrow access to the inside of our bodies because of the Fourth Amendment. It can more readily get a sample of a person's DNA than a sample of a person's blood, because blood is inside the body, whereas DNA is in skin cells, fingernails, and hair, If the police have evidence that points to a person as the culprit who committed or is committing a crime, and it is sufficient for a warrant, they can get a warrant for a blood sample, or even in some cases a body cavity search, e.g., the person is suspected of concealing illegal drugs or stolen diamonds in that cavity. But sex and pregnancy are not crimes, so they can't get a warrant for a blood or urine test to see if a woman is pregnant. And thanks to the Fourth, her medical records are protected by privacy rights. So from a Constitutional viewpoint, there is no legal person there to be counted in the Census or to have rights that are not contingent on live birth.

 

[choiceone]

Quick...which case would be considered 'normal'? And in the cases you cited would it matter if it was 10 weeks, 20 weeks, or even full term? Didnt think so. But hey...nice approach to future world! We could do a cleansing...eliminate ALL unwanted traits and characteristics.

Some anomalies cannot be identified until 21 weeks. That's my point. So you want women to give birth even if it means she has to carry to term a fetus that is 100% guaranteed to be stillborn - how thoughtful of you. And FYI, whether I would personally approve a particular decision or not, a woman has as much of a right to refuse to give birth to a seriously defective fetus as she has to refuse to speak a serious lie or a seriously grammatically deformed sentence. It's her mouth, not yours, and since she alone is going to be judged by it - and to be sure she is going to be judged by it - as by the words that come out of the mouth on her face, she has the right to reject it on the basis of its quality.

 

[VanceMack]

Some anomalies cannot be identified until 21 weeks. That's my point. So you want women to give birth even if it means she has to carry to term a fetus that is 100% guaranteed to be stillborn - how thoughtful of you. And FYI, whether I would personally approve a particular decision or not, a woman has as much of a right to refuse to give birth to a seriously defective fetus as she has to refuse to speak a serious lie or a seriously grammatically deformed sentence. It's her mouth, not yours, and since she alone is going to be judged by it - and to be sure she is going to be judged by it - as by the words that come out of the mouth on her face, she has the right to reject it on the basis of its quality.

Its pretty pathetic that you use the occasional anomoly as if that somehow relates to the overall argument. that is as stupid as saying "yes...its true absolutely NO gay couples can have kids, but still, some heterosexual couples cant either".

But dont get me wrong. im not an adovactae of banning abortions...never have been. I think the lip service paid to the "safe but rare" comment is bull****. I think both 'sides' are dishonest about the issue ad truly only care about it in the name of politics. And hey..I AGREE with you. All those poor people out there and minorities...they really should continue to abort their unwanted unborn children. After all...who needs unwanted children?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

A lot of women think that, in all sorts of cases, having an abortion is the most responsible thing they can do about the results of their sexual actions. Of course, I myself just decided to be celibate and let men play with themselves.

Didn't know killing someone was responsible....

 

[davidtaylorjr]

But your posts didn't say the man should be personally responsible. Maybe he should try staying zipped up.

Takes two to tango as they say. And as I have already explained, the context of my comments didn't require talking about men, but I have done so since then. Thanks.

 

[Josie]

Not really because by the time a woman has reached the limit of viability she has already decided to continue the pregnancy unless something goes wrong with the pregnancy or she was kidnapped and held hostage.
Sane women do not wait 22 to 24 weeks then wake up oone morning and say, "Gee I think now that I am 22 weeks pregnant I will go get an abortion."

Are you under the impression that all females are sane?

 

[cpwill]

They want women to be punished for having sex.

About as much as you want to murder children. You may want to reconsider before you presume to speak on behalf of the hearts of others.

 

[cpwill]

Some anomalies cannot be identified until 21 weeks. That's my point. So you want women to give birth even if it means she has to carry to term a fetus that is 100% guaranteed to be stillborn - how thoughtful of you. And FYI, whether I would personally approve a particular decision or not, a woman has as much of a right to refuse to give birth to a seriously defective fetus as she has to refuse to speak a serious lie or a seriously grammatically deformed sentence. It's her mouth, not yours, and since she alone is going to be judged by it - and to be sure she is going to be judged by it - as by the words that come out of the mouth on her face, she has the right to reject it on the basis of its quality.

For example, in India they often reject it and have it killed because it is an inferior gender. You good with that?

 

[minnie616]

Are you under the impression that all females are sane?

No, but even if abortion were legal at all stages it does not mean even insane women will be able to abort.
Canada has no restrictions after viability and yet their numbers of abortions after viability are about the same as the USA which restricts abortions at viability.

 

[Josie]

No, but even if abortion were legal at all stages it does not mean even insane women will be able to abort.
Canada has no restrictions after viability and yet their numbers of abortions after viability are about the same as the USA which restricts abortions at viability.

Alrighty then. Abortions on demand! Abortions with zero restrictions!

I knew that's what pro-aborts really wanted.

 

[cpwill]

No, but even if abortion were legal at all stages it does not mean even insane women will be able to abort.
Canada has no restrictions after viability and yet their numbers of abortions after viability are about the same as the USA which restricts abortions at viability.

The U.S. does not stop abortions at viability. we only just a few years back passed a ban on killing children after they were born. Abortion in this country is effectively restricted only by your willingness to get one. Children are killed at the same age as premies currently being cuddled by their mothers.

 

[minnie616]

Alrighty then. Abortions on demand! Abortions with zero restrictions!

I knew that's what pro-choicers really wanted.

No, I am fine with the restrictions of Roe vs. Wade as I have mentioned many times.
I was just pointing out that your scenario of many women wanting and obtaining abortions after viability is as some say a" red herring. " It just does not happen. In fact there are only 4 doctors in The USA who perform legal abortions after viabilty
and they are the ones that OB/GYNs send their patients to that have the extreme problem pregnancies I have mentioned before.
Where the life of the woman or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued,where the fetus would be stillborn or where it is so malformed it would only live for a few minutes or hours.

Most pro choice people I know are quite happy with Roe vs Wade as it now stands.

Before viability an embryo or fetus is not a separate entity. It depends on the woman's life forces to survive.
If the woman dies the pre viable fetus will not survive even if immediately removed and given the most advanced medical care.

Once viability is reached if the woman dies the viable fetus has a good chance of surviving if removed and given medical care such as a neo natal unit if needed.

Once viability is reached it is no longer dependent on the life of the bio mom.

A nurse, the father, an adoptive parent, a grandparent, a foster parent , or a caregiver can, fed, clothe and take of the baby.

 

[minnie616]

The U.S. does not stop abortions at viability. we only just a few years back passed a ban on killing children after they were born. Abortion in this country is effectively restricted only by your willingness to get one. Children are killed at the same age as premies currently being cuddled by their mothers.

Please provide links that just a few years back they passed a ban on killing children after born.
Are you talking about intact D and E also known as partial birth abortions ?
Those abortions were almost always performed at the 16 to 20 week gestation mark which is before viability.

The youngest premie to ever survive was 21 weeks 5 days old.
Experts say no fetus younger than 21 weeks will ever survive outside a womb.
Their lungs and digestive systems are not developed enough to allow the premie younger than 21 weeks gestation to survive.

The limit of viability ( when 50 percent or more premies survive ) is 24 weeks gestation. It has remained unchanged for more than 12 years. The incidence of major disabilities is still very high at 24 weeks gestation.

 

[Josie]

No, I am fine with the restrictions of Roe vs. Wade as I have mentioned many times.

Why do you want to force women with late-term pregnancies to give birth?

 

[nota bene]

1) Killing and murder are two completely different things. The first scenario is defending yourself, the second is capital punishment. What that has to do with women being too ****ing lazy to abort on time is beyond me. There's absolutely no reason for it to take longer than 20 weeks to make a decision. Pure laziness.

2) Whether YOU consider it murder or not is irrelevant in the argument of why THEY support it. The person I was addressing, don't remember if it was you, said they were doing this out of a place of hate, when in reality they're doing it because they believe it's murder and morally wrong. So whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant, you have to at least recognize they're doing it out of compassion.

3) Liberals wanted the government to be more powerful and make more healthcare decisions. I don't understand why they're not ecstatic about this. Do you still whine about your freedom when you can't murder someone you don't like? I mean, how dare the government tell you what to do with your own body. How dare they tell you not to kill him.

A 20 week limit compared to the rest of the world is EXTREMELY liberal. It's essentially a post-viability abortion ban. Shortly after 20 weeks the fetus becomes viable. How can you think killing something that can live on its own could possibly be no big deal?



Sane women don't, lazy and or insane ones do. No rational person would wait 20+ weeks to get an abortion, so I don't see why everybody is whining and crying about this. 20 is far, far more than reasonable.



Kind of like the hypocrisy of the left wanting the government to regulate and control EVERYTHING except for abortion. Hospitals have to meet certain regulations, but abortion clinics get a free pass?

The concern is that second-trimester abortions sometimes require different techniques.

 

[nota bene]

Some anomalies cannot be identified until 21 weeks. That's my point. So you want women to give birth even if it means she has to carry to term a fetus that is 100% guaranteed to be stillborn - how thoughtful of you. And FYI, whether I would personally approve a particular decision or not, a woman has as much of a right to refuse to give birth to a seriously defective fetus as she has to refuse to speak a serious lie or a seriously grammatically deformed sentence. It's her mouth, not yours, and since she alone is going to be judged by it - and to be sure she is going to be judged by it - as by the words that come out of the mouth on her face, she has the right to reject it on the basis of its quality.

I can't say that I see the connection between bad grammar and the telling of a serious lie or the telling of a serious lie and the decision to abort. Unbalanced scales here.

Two of my aunts were forced to carry stillborns to turn and to labor, which I think is horrifyingly cruel. Yes, there are anomolies and also grave threats to a woman's health (and, sigh, also rape and incest), but here's the thing: You aren't going to find many normal, sane folks who are going to argue about an ectopic pregnancy or a catastrophically damaged fetus.

Who is going to disagree under these circumstances, which are the exception rather than the rule? Continually drawing strange connections and seizing on the extraordinary is a diversion from the fact that the majority of abortions are of perfectly healthy unborns who, if allowed continue living, will be born normally and ordinarily.