Dems now openly supporting murder

[StillBallin75]

As opposed to all the Republicans who ACTUALLY support murder when they get women killed? When they bomb brown countries for being too "Communist?" When they deport people back to "where they came from" so they can be murdered by cartels or authoritarian states? When they support a laissez faire approach to pandemic response? When they deny young people gender affirming healthcare? When they insist on continuing to warm the planet because suggesting that we NOT is economic suicide? When they watch a ****ing cop murder someone on live camera and find all sorts of mental gymnastics rationale to justify why that cop should get away with it?

Give me a ****ing break, you people are the last ones to lecture anyone else on tbe sanctity of life.

 

[eohrnberger]

Unborn put women in danger via pregnancy. They shouldn't have protections.

Nice complete devaluation of human life which can least protect itself. Good luck with that.

Have a nice day.

 

[multivita-man]

Because he does abortions before that time too, that's the point. Most of those abortions were performed prior to the 32 weeks, but after viability or even possibly 20 weeks, where Roe was set so that's also where many judge the point of where specialist doctors are set up, available for such abortions. The vast majority of the abortions he performs are before 32 weeks. Those after are rare and rely on other factors, due to the risk from such an abortion. That was pretty clear in the reading.

I used to be against abortions, believed in heartbeat laws. You can find me in these arguments years ago on this site. I changed my view after talking with others, seeing the price that women, girls pay when we restrict abortions. And that was long before Roe went down.

Likely a good number and likely most of those are going to need an abortion. But there's a reason I stated 13, since it's hard to argue that an 11 or 12 year old or younger than 10 would fair well carrying a pregnancy to term either. So then even at 1% of our 50k number (likely it isn't even that low), that is still 500 abortions among under 13. That's pretty equivalent to a .1% of all abortions (again, this is likely a high estimate) performed after 32 weeks for any reason, right around 600 (since both numbers should come from CDC).

I'm pro choice and pro-accuracy. It's inaccurate to say that only non-viable fetuses are aborted, and that it's only due to the health of the mother. I agree that these are extreme cases that are exceptionally rare.

 

[roguenuke]

Nice complete devaluation of human life which can least protect itself. Good luck with that.

Have a nice day.

I hold different human lives at different values, like pretty much every other person.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm pro choice and pro-accuracy. It's inaccurate to say that only non-viable fetuses are aborted, and that it's only due to the health of the mother. I agree that these are extreme cases that are exceptionally rare.

I didn't say only non-viable fetuses are aborted. I'm saying that you placed the time for late term abortions, your cutoff (and I assumed for only those that could be considered healthy pregnancy) at 32 weeks. There's an in between period though between where the Roe/Casey legal cutoff was mandated (20 weeks) and your 32 weeks, even between viability (24 weeks), where some consider "late term abortion" to fit in and your 32 weeks. That's the thing though. He is a doctor who performs abortions after the more normal cutoff point, of 20 weeks. whether 28 or 32 weeks, very, very few abortions are done at that point on healthy fetuses where there is no risk to the mother. Almost all fit into either health/life of mother or severe problems for the fetus. That is a fact. Before 32 or even 28 weeks, yes, that is going to likely include more who missed deadlines or didn't know they were pregnant, still viable fetus but not able to be born without medical issues and still a big chance of not surviving.

Even if there were a dozen that made it past 32 weeks and then decided to have an abortion, they still are not likely to get one if there isn't an actual issue. That's the point. Even this doctor says at that point, there is a much higher risk of health problems for the mother by performing an abortion than simply allowing birth, labor.

 

[KLATTU]

Until birth, the fetus is not an a person. You're welcome to fantasize that this isn't the case because of your sky person mythology, but the law is on my side, not yours, and we will not tolerate any attempt by you to force your mythology upon the silent majority of Americans.

you mean this silent majority?
The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, 65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.

Sound like it's the left who wants their shit shoved down the silent majority's throat

 

[roguenuke]

you mean this silent majority?
The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, 65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.

Sound like it's the left who wants their shit shoved down the silent majority's throat

No, that was still Roe/Casey setting. Just because many feel it should be considered an issue regarding a woman's right and not putting her danger due to restrictive abortion laws, doesn't mean that we don't also recognize that Roe/Casey was a liveable compromise. Until you all took it down, and now far more women and girls are in danger, dying.

 

[KLATTU]

Democrats support choice for the woman, why do so many republicans have such a hard time understanding we put more importance on a grown woman than a fetus?

Well-sorry- the overwhelming majority don't agree.
The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, 65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.

 

[roguenuke]

Well-sorry- the overwhelming majority don't agree.
The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, 65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.

The overwhelming majority agree that Roe should never have been struck down.

 

[Lursa]

Who​

1 : what or which person or persons

2 : the person or persons that : whoever

SO...which person is more important? Can you think of another category of life and death where you would even suggest such a question or that there is a preferable option?

Then why do 99.98% of all anti-abortion people say it's acceptable to kill the unborn to save the life of the mother? What's the key to their prioritization there? Why? How about you...tell us your view on that?

 

[Lursa]

I'm pro choice and pro-accuracy. It's inaccurate to say that only non-viable fetuses are aborted, and that it's only due to the health of the mother. I agree that these are extreme cases that are exceptionally rare.

No doctor can be compelled to abort healthy, viable fetuses...unless it's in the best interests of his patient...the woman. If he decides that it is, that the next 2-3 months of pregnancy left will endanger her life and/or health, physically OR psychologically, then he'll act in the best interest of his patient.

Fortunately, women almost never choose to abort healthy, viable fetuses. Why would they, when they can get ~$10,000-$30,000 for it in a perfectly legal private adoption?

 

[multivita-man]

No doctor can be compelled to abort healthy, viable fetuses...unless it's in the best interests of his patient...the woman. If he decides that it is, that the next 2-3 months of pregnancy left will endanger her life and/or health, physically

Agreed, understood.

OR psychologically, then he'll act in the best interest of his patient.

I think this is the more complicated part for a lot of people. Totally get it in the 1st term and maybe early 2nd term before viability can be assumed, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to question whether or not there should be prohibited abortive practices beyond a certain point.

 

[Lursa]

Agreed, understood.

I think this is the more complicated part for a lot of people. Totally get it in the 1st term and maybe early 2nd term before viability can be assumed, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to question whether or not there should be prohibited abortive practices beyond a certain point.

Why? How does the unborn ever take precedence, in terms of legal protections from the govt? The federal govt is obligated to protect women's rights, it recognizes none for the unborn. I realize that sounds callous but it's true.

So then why not leave it to the doctors? As a medical issue. What does it say about how anti-abortion people view doctors, nurses, and women if they believe they just happily abort healthy viable fetuses? It's amazingly disrespectful and demeaning. Women dont do that without extreme need. Should a woman have to spend 2-3 months in extreme pain? Extremely sick, debilitated? What if she cant work, has a family to support? What if she's suicidal? What if she'd hurt herself and the fetus anyway?

Why should there be laws demanding this when these are things that should be between a woman and her doctor?

 

[Lursa]

Btw...for those that dont know it, but someone posted recently that didnt...by law and hospital policies the unborn is already dead before it is removed. It receives a lethal dose of anesthetic and feels nothing, suffers nothing.

Someone actually posted the other day that they thought the fetuses were delivered and then killed This is how little some people think of doctors and nurses. I do realize there were back alley monsters in the past..however the more you restrict abortion...the more you'll start seeing those monsters again.

 

[Gordy327]

Who​

1 : what or which person or persons

2 : the person or persons that : whoever

SO...which person is more important? Can you think of another category of life and death where you would even suggest such a question or that there is a preferable option?

Why don't you answer independentusa question first!

 

[multivita-man]

Why? How does the unborn ever take precedence,

There are different degrees of unborn, though. You can ignore that if you wish, but I think a lo of people have complicated feelings as the timeframe is extended.

in terms of legal protections from the govt? The federal govt is obligated to protect women's rights, it recognizes none for the unborn. I realize that sounds callous but it's true.

Speaking in purely legalistic terms, the above is no longer true. I know that's not what you want to believe, but the SCOTUS made that effectively true last year.

So then why not leave it to the doctors? As a medical issue.

Abortion is absolutely a medical issue, but it's also a moral one. I criticize anti-abortion activists for failing to see this as an matter of maternal health, which it certainly is, but I don't care how strongly you believe in women's reproductive rights: you can't expect people to just deny the humanity of a late-term viable fetus. You can still absolutely argue that humanity aside, the greater imperative is protective the well-being of the mother and that her abortion rights are absolute.

That's how I see this issue. There are anti-abortion absolutists, abortion rights absolutists, and then there are those like me who are somewhere in between, acknowledging that this is almost exclusively a woman's right for the first half of her pregnancy, but that it gets more complicated thereafter.

What does it say about how anti-abortion people view doctors, nurses, and women if they believe they just happily abort healthy viable fetuses? It's amazingly disrespectful and demeaning.

Nobody's saying that. I certainly haven't said that. All I'm saying is that this issue gets more ethically complicated as the gestation period is extended.

Women dont do that without extreme need. Should a woman have to spend 2-3 months in extreme pain? Extremely sick, debilitated? What if she cant work, has a family to support? What if she's suicidal? What if she'd hurt herself and the fetus anyway?

Again, not sure why you two keep looking past this, but I'm not talking about the cases in which a doctor has determined an abortion to be medically necessary from an OBGYN's point of view. I'm referring to situations in which a child is aborted because the mother's having a hard time mentally. And again, first trimester or first half of the pregnancy, it's clearly a matter between the mother and her doctor.

Why should there be laws demanding this when these are things that should be between a woman and her doctor?

Because some people think that a fetus at 6, 7, or 8 months can survive on its own with the help of modern medical technology, and that it's not just a clump of tissue. I am sympathetic to that point of view.

That being said, I already concede, I can't prove my ethics are better than yours or anyone else's. And I'm not even remotely trying. This is why the abortion issue is so complicated and emotional.

 

[Gordy327]

you mean this silent majority?
The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, 65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.

Sound like it's the left who wants their shit shoved down the silent majority's throat

I think there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever and leave the matter entirely between a woman and her doctor. Morality (or emotion) doesn't even factor into my position as I have made logical arguments for it before.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

To call Democrats killers on this issue is simply biased BS. First of all, we are talking about a "definition" of the word life.

Here is the accepted and legal definition of life:

What is the exact definition of life?
Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli. A fetus is not breathing until it leaves the womb of the mother. As such, your calling a person troglodyte suggests that you are the one that is a troglodyte because your definition goes against the established definition on life.

OP's such as this one are nothing but biased BS in favor of what you believe and against the truth. These types of OP's are not worth even reading or paying attention to.

View attachment 67454209

LOL love that pic

 

[Lursa]

There are different degrees of unborn, though. You can ignore that if you wish, but I don't think that's a position that's taken the majority.

The federal govt recognizes none. Again, I was clearly speaking to legal aspects of abortion.

Speaking in purely legalistic terms, the above is no longer true. I know that's not what you want to believe, but the SCOTUS made that effectively true last year.

No they didnt. They left it up to the states. Did you know that so far, not a single state has made having an abortion a crime? Only providing them. Do you know why? I just explained that.

Abortion is absolutely a medical issue, but it's also a moral one. I criticize anti-abortion activists for failing to see this as an matter of maternal health, which it certainly is, but I don't care how strongly you believe in women's reproductive rights: you can't expect people to just deny the humanity of a late-term viable fetus. You can still absolutely argue that humanity aside, the greater imperative is protective the well-being of the mother and that her abortion rights are absolute.

I was speaking to a woman's physical and mental well-being.

And if people WANT to deny the humanity of the woman or the late term fetus they are welcome to. Can you tell me tho, why they should be able to force their moral view onto women, American citizens, that dont believe the same?

I dont think anyone is arguing that any rights are absolute.

That's how I see this issue. There are anti-abortion absolutists, abortion rights absolutists, and then there are those like me who are somewhere in between, acknowledging that this is almost exclusively a woman's right for the first half of her pregnancy, but that it gets more complicated thereafter.

It gets complicated based on your feelings, nothing more. Or other people's feelings. Please see above about forcing those on others? The Const is there to protect men and women. Let it do it's job and let doctors do theirs.

Nobody's saying that. I certainly haven't said that. All I'm saying is that this issue gets more ethically complicated as the gestation period is extended.

See above.

Again, not sure why you two keep looking past this, but I'm not talking about the cases in which a doctor has determined an abortion to be medically necessary from an OBGYN's point of view. I'm referring to situations in which a child is aborted because the mother's having a hard time mentally. And again, first trimester or first half of the pregnancy, it's clearly a matter between the mother and her doctor.

I addressed that, 2 different examples. Please address those. What makes you think there's no psychiatric counseling or consulting? (btw such late term abortions are highly specialized and those OB-GYNs also deal with the psychological aspects as well.)

Because some people think that a fetus at 6, 7, or 8 months can survive on its own with the help of modern medical technology, and that it's not just a clump of tissue. I am sympathetic to that point of view.

Again...what's the justification for forcing that on those that dont believe the same? Just disregard her pain and suffering for months? The fact that she might lose her job, her kids, debilitated for months? Or suicidal?

That being said, I already concede, I can't prove my ethics are better than yours or anyone else's. And I'm not even remotely trying. This is why the abortion issue is so complicated and emotional.

Yes it is.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Abortion is absolutely a medical issue, but it's also a moral one.

Meh. Not really. Its an issue for a woman and her doctor.

 

[multivita-man]

Meh. Not really. Its an issue for a woman and her doctor.

So if a woman's going into labor a doctor can inject poison into the fetus? No certificate of live birth and all?

 

[Doppelgangirl]

there is plenty of room for debate on what constitutes a human life in early stages of pregnancy. But only a troglydite would argure that it's NOT a human life in the late stages.

CARDIN: Well, we support Roe v. Wade. We thought that was established law. It was established law for almost 50 years. The Supreme Court decision was a radical decision that reversed the rights of women to make their own health-care decisions. So we support Roe v. Wade, we support the right of women to be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive rights, and it shouldn’t be subservient to what state legislatures are doing.

BREAM: But what about the states where it’s actually legal up until the due date? Is that something Democrats support?

CARDIN: We support the right of women to make their own decisions. This is a personal decision made by women with the advice of their doctors and their family, and we don’t think we should try to tell women when they can make those decisions.

BREAM: Is there a cut-off for you before that point?

CARDIN: No, to me, it’s a reproductive — it’s a health-care
The position explicitly articulated by Cardin is shared by every Democrat but one in the Senate and one in the House who back the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA).

Of course when you pander for votes, principles go out the window, not that many DEms have them in the first place. The ends justify the means has always been the calling card of Des,
The end being getting those offices!

How many women choose abortion at ‘the moment of birth?’
Do you have statistics?
Because the only “late term abortions” I’ve read about since the USSC took my rights away are absolutely heartbreaking situations- being forced *by law* to get deathly ill before medical intervention is allowed.
Why do you think government needs to supervise women like they are children?
Why am I less capable of making medical decisions than you are?

 

[VanceMack]

Then why do 99.98% of all anti-abortion people say it's acceptable to kill the unborn to save the life of the mother? What's the key to their prioritization there? Why? How about you...tell us your view on that?

Its a conundrum, isnt it?

My position is as it has always been. I'm a pragmatist and a realist. Abortion is murder. The wholesale endorsement of butchering 800,000 unborn babies in any given year is a slaughter. That people do it willfully...joyously...is a horrific condemnation of those individuals. At the same time...Abortion is a practice that will never go away. So...I do not nor have I ever endorsed banning abortions. I believe we should be working to the actual goal of making abortion safe, legal........and rare.

The decision between a mothers life and a baby is unfathomably hard. I celebrate the women who put their bodies at risk to have babies. Those that give themselves for the life of their baby...heroic...no less heroic than any parent that would sacrifice themselves to save a child. I think its a sign of mental illness that people put the qualifier on it and demean human life...just because it has not yet in its developmental state been born. I dont make that choice. Its amazingly twisted to me that you people put forward that argument thinking you are scoring political points in a 'cause'.

 

[Lursa]

Its a conundrum, isnt it?

My position is as it has always been. I'm a pragmatist and a realist. Abortion is murder. The wholesale endorsement of butchering 800,000 unborn babies in any given year is a slaughter. That people do it willfully...joyously...is a horrific condemnation of those individuals. At the same time...Abortion is a practice that will never go away. So...I do not nor have I ever endorsed banning abortions. I believe we should be working to the actual goal of making abortion safe, legal........and rare.

The decision between a mothers life and a baby is unfathomably hard. I celebrate the women who put their bodies at risk to have babies. Those that give themselves for the life of their baby...heroic...no less heroic than any parent that would sacrifice themselves to save a child. I think its a sign of mental illness that people put the qualifier on it and demean human life...just because it has not yet in its developmental state been born. I dont make that choice. Its amazingly twisted to me that you people put forward that argument thinking you are scoring political points in a 'cause'.

So you didnt answer the question. You just said it's hard.

The rest is your usual hysterical crap but here, you couldnt even commit to the real, tough question. Jeebus but your posts are worthless. I tried addressing you respectfully.

And untruthful...because you 100% would make the choice for the woman unless her life is at risk. By voting, by force of law. And then hide when the real tough question comes regarding the woman's life.

 

[Hari Seldon]

there is plenty of room for debate on what constitutes a human life in early stages of pregnancy. But only a troglydite would argure that it's NOT a human life in the late stages.

CARDIN: Well, we support Roe v. Wade. We thought that was established law. It was established law for almost 50 years. The Supreme Court decision was a radical decision that reversed the rights of women to make their own health-care decisions. So we support Roe v. Wade, we support the right of women to be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive rights, and it shouldn’t be subservient to what state legislatures are doing.

BREAM: But what about the states where it’s actually legal up until the due date? Is that something Democrats support?

CARDIN: We support the right of women to make their own decisions. This is a personal decision made by women with the advice of their doctors and their family, and we don’t think we should try to tell women when they can make those decisions.

BREAM: Is there a cut-off for you before that point?

CARDIN: No, to me, it’s a reproductive — it’s a health-care
The position explicitly articulated by Cardin is shared by every Democrat but one in the Senate and one in the House who back the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA).

Of course when you pander for votes, principles go out the window, not that many DEms have them in the first place. The ends justify the means has always been the calling card of Des,
The end being getting those offices!

Always nice to hear from the pro fetus party.