It is time for abortion to stop being a political football.

[Integrityrespec]

What does 'no limits' mean? None. I did specify 'healthy, viable fetuses.' The medical field considers 24 weeks to be 'viable.'

"Morally acceptable" is IMO, completely based on the woman's needs, not the unborn.** And IMO, as I wrote, only the individual woman knows her circumstances, her health and risks (with her Dr), her ability to fulfill her responsibilities and obligations to current family, employer, community, church, society, etc. and the impacts on those. I asked before, is there anyone else better positioned to know that?

And I'm not planning to watch the video. Feel free to articulate anything you'd like to discuss.

**As I also wrote, since no such abortions of healthy, viable fetuses take place, it doesnt make the position that hard.

What someone chooses to call a baby in the womb so they ease their conscious doesn't matter. What matters is killing babies isn't OK.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I learned quite a bit from people (mostly who said they were women) on a progressive comment section.

I learned a lot from watching "After Tiller." Dr Tiller was a late-term abortion provider who was murdered by an anti-abortion "crusader." One of the women healthcare staff in the documentary had an issue with a woman wanting a very(?) late-term abortion because she didn't want to have a baby, at the time. I believe she was young and missed earlier opportunities. I believe the doctor was okay with this woman getting an abortion. This is part of why I brought it up. I'll leave it at that, for now.

IIRC, that woman was overseas and they denied her.

 

[Scrabaholic]

What someone chooses to call a baby in the womb so they ease their conscious doesn't matter. What matters is killing babies isn't OK.

Killing babies is illegal.

What another woman does with the contents of her UTERUS is not my business.

 

[Antiwar]

@Lursa

I just wanted to add a thought that came to me, and which I used to say on an Internet forum or three:

If men could become pregnant, then abortion wouldn't be an issue.

 

[VanceMack]

Prove it.

Theres plenty of videos of PP leaders bragging about selling off the dead babies they butcher. They are an abortion mill. Its what they do.

 

[Goshin]

Abortion should not be a political football, because the acceptance of killing innocence babies in the womb is unacceptable.

As I said in a later post, I find abortion abhorrent, personally. My point is thinking that Republicans are going to outlaw it seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Lursa]

The above doesn't address my question.

Absolutely it does. What does 'none' mean to you?

The following comment of yours needs to be qualified with some measure of time relative to pregnancy, or else it's too vague, in the part I highlighted :

Continuing with the above: No elective second-trimester abortions take place? No elective third-trimester abortions take place? No elective induced-labor abortions take place? No elective in-labor abortions take place? How late is late?

Again, I was 100% clear: no elective abortions of healthy, viable fetuses take place. Every single thing there has been defined.

Elective: not medically necessary. Healthy: duh? viable: 24 weeks.

No abortions...zero... that fit this description take place. I cant make it much simpler. If you disagree, you need to show the data.

I don't really disagree, but I find it mostly irrelevant to my point.

You asked for the moral implications and then dismissed them without addressing my answer.

Lame.

The reason I said you can watch the video is because you didn't believe my perception (which I already discussed) was correct.

I understood your perception, it's not novel. I provided a counter argument, a much more detailed explanation of what you described, a fuller picture.

The above is what I find hard to believe.

Facilities keep records. The data is produced and people post links to this kind of thing all the time. There is no record of such abortions taking place. If you disbelieve it...fine...produce proof of otherwise.

I disagree. As I also said about the video, a late-term abortion provider worker (nurse?) had a hard time with the case I mentioned.

It wasnt even the US. So it has no place in this discussion IMO. I dont know the laws elsewhere. Or how available abortion was to this woman earlier, IF it even was.

I think that says something about the complexity of the morality since she had qualms about that case.

I offered my view on this and you dismissed it without comment. Why? Feel free to do so.

And a nurse, anyone, is welcome to have reservations...as long as they dont force them on the woman. Because it's not their choice, their life, or their consequences. And many decisions in life are tough....that doesnt mean that they are wrong. DIvorce is supposed to be one of the most difficult, stressful things a person goes thru in life, but that decision is made with a view that it will be better in the future for all involved, for a better future for that family. Doesnt mean it's not painful or sad or difficult. It also doesnt mean it's the wrong decision.

 

[Lursa]

What someone chooses to call a baby in the womb so they ease their conscious doesn't matter. What matters is killing babies isn't OK.

Killing babies is illegal. Gee, words do have meaning If you cant control your feelings on this issue, please keep them to yourself.

Telling yourself abortion 'kills babies' just so you can emotionally stoke your self-righteousness about letting the govt force women to remain pregnant against their will doesnt matter.

 

[Lursa]

@Lursa

I just wanted to add a thought that came to me, and which I used to say on an Internet forum or three:

If men could become pregnant, then abortion wouldn't be an issue.

What parts of the issue would change?

Your comment is just a facile reflection on the realities of politics and who's still holds the majority of those roles.

 

[screenwriter]

@Lursa

I just wanted to add a thought that came to me, and which I used to say on an Internet forum or three:

If men could become pregnant, then abortion wouldn't be an issue.

Abortion wouldn't be an issue if as much energy was put into getting people to wear protection for sex as they are for preventing Covid. Pregnancy is even far easier to protect against than Covid. If the failure rate of contraceptive was even anywhere near the abortion rate the contraceptive providers would be doing nothing but defending defective product liability lawsuits.

 

[Antiwar]

What parts of the issue would change?

Every male attitude would change because men would not accept being forced to give birth against their will.

Your comment is just a facile reflection on the realities of politics and who's still holds the majority of those roles.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm anti-abortion.

 

[Antiwar]

...

Again, I was 100% clear: no elective abortions of healthy, viable fetuses take place. Every single thing there has been defined.

Elective: not medically necessary. Healthy: duh? viable: 24 weeks.

No abortions...zero... that fit this description take place. I cant make it much simpler. If you disagree, you need to show the data.

...

The following quote is from an article on late-term abortion:

“It’s for people after 24 weeks who find themselves with either bad pregnancy indications for the fetus or threats to their own health.”

Are there threats to a pregnant woman's health that have nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is considered viable? I don't know, but I'm going to guess that some pregnant women (that want to have a baby) find out after 24 weeks that they have a health anomaly that seriously risks their life if they give birth.

Also, there are possibly cases of rape and incest that pass 24 weeks which involve viable fetuses.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Theres plenty of videos of PP leaders bragging about selling off the dead babies they butcher. They are an abortion mill. Its what they do.

You mean videos conveniently edited? Funny how even when conservatives investigated, no charges were laid. Killing babies and selling them is ILLEGAL.

 

[Indie guy]

Many people seem to be forgetting that a very well-known republican supported Planned Parenthood and abortion rights during his time, and that person was Barry Goldwater.

No, abortion shouldn't be a political issue but it's confusing how so many republicans could be so strongly against something which a man dubbed Mr. Conservative supported.

 

[VanceMack]

You mean videos conveniently edited? Funny how even when conservatives investigated, no charges were laid. Killing babies and selling them is ILLEGAL.

I love...seriously...lover how readily and eagerly you people shit on your own integrtiy. You see the actual words coming out of someones mouth, but since the corrupt piece of shit supports your cause you will sell your integrity down the river to make excuses for them. Nothing anyone ever says ABOUT you can be as damning as what you say about yourself.

Despicable.

 

[Lursa]

Every male attitude would change because men would not accept being forced to give birth against their will.

And women will? Please explain.

Women didnt in the past either. They still got abortions.

Sorry, that's one of the silliest responses I've seen. What else have you got?

You seem to be under the impression that I'm anti-abortion.

No but I am under the impression that your information on this issue is rather limited.

 

[Antiwar]

And women will? Please explain.

Women didnt in the past either. They still got abortions.

Sorry, that's one of the silliest responses I've seen. What else have you got?

Mine is one of the best responses ever, but it seems you don't understand it. Maybe you'll understand if I make it absurd:

If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available while waiting in line at fast food drive-thrus.

No but I am under the impression that your information on this issue is rather limited.

Correct. I've never felt the need to have a lot of information on this issue nor any issue, really, because solid principles are better than wading through information, misinformation, disinformation, poor analyses, poor principles, etc.

 

[Lursa]

The following quote is from an article on late-term abortion:

Are there threats to a pregnant woman's health that have nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is considered viable? I don't know, but I'm going to guess that some pregnant women (that want to have a baby) find out after 24 weeks that they have a health anomaly that seriously risks their life if they give birth.

That's a clear description of 'medically necessary' abortions. Thus, they are not "elective." I was very clear in my response as well.

Due to high blood pressure, stroke risk, etc etc there are many life or death risks for women, right up to giving birth. Some women die during labor due to such things. So why are you questioning this? And yes, women are also allowed to decide if defective fetuses (meaning "not healthy" which I also spelled out for you) should be aborted. There are some drastic things that do not show up until after 20 weeks.

How are you not understanding this?

Also, there are possibly cases of rape and incest that pass 24 weeks which involve viable fetuses.

This makes no sense. I believe you made this up. The woman knows what happened to her. Why would she wait that long, 6 months? And I gave you the reasons why women DONT have elective abortions that late...the added danger and the option for $$ from adoption.

OTOH, if a woman did choose to have an abortion that late, due to her trauma from rape or incest, it's absolutely her right to do so and I support her decision. Again, only she knows the true impact and consequences to her and her family and other responsibilities from that pregnancy. No one else.

 

[Lursa]

That's one of the best responses ever, but it seems you don't understand it. Maybe you'll understand if I make it absurd:

If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available while waiting in line at fast food drive-thrus.

My my, you're quite impressed with yourself.

If abortion were found unConstitutional...how would pregnant men avoid being forced to remain pregnant against their will? How would they be above the law if women arent?

Correct. I've never felt the need to have a lot of information on this issue nor any issue, really, because solid principles are better than wading through information, misinformation, disinformation, poor analyses, poor principles, etc.

LOL you dont know enough about the issue to formulate a position based on principles. Because you obviously keep challenging and misunderstanding the late term aspects of the issue. (As one example)

And I havent seen you state your 'principles' on late term abortion yet...I can guess tho, since you keep trying to dissect it into something you can rationalize against.

 

[Antiwar]

My my, you're quite impressed with yourself.

I didn't claim that I am the source of my given notion.

The notion is that abortion has a lot of misogynistic attitudes behind it.

If abortion were found unConstitutional...how would pregnant men avoid being forced to remain pregnant against their will? How would they be above the law if women arent?

Why are you focusing on constitutionality?

LOL you dont know enough about the issue to formulate a position based on principles.

Maybe, maybe not.

Because you obviously keep challenging and misunderstanding the late term aspects of the issue.

I don't think so. You haven't defined your terms for late-term, except with vague "no limits" and "never happens" responses to my thoughtful commentary.

(As one example)

Your one example is highly questionable. You're attempting to bolster it.

And I havent seen you state your 'principles' on late term abortion yet...

That's because I haven't. That's because I don't have one. I'm learning, and at some point I may have said principle(s). Maybe not- abortion is a complex moral issue.

I'm trying to unearth your principles. The one I've seen is something like: It's a woman's body, it's her choice. That's not necessarily a poor principle, but I think it's not airtight. For example, an abortion provider can deny her choice by not performing an abortion.

You seem to be in combat mode.

I can guess tho, since you keep trying to dissect it into something you can rationalize against.

Go for it.

 

[Lursa]

Abortion wouldn't be an issue if as much energy was put into getting people to wear protection for sex as they are for preventing Covid. Pregnancy is even far easier to protect against than Covid. If the failure rate of contraceptive was even anywhere near the abortion rate the contraceptive providers would be doing nothing but defending defective product liability lawsuits.

Well, then I suggest a large portion of adults in the US stop discouraging sex ed in schools and stop trying to take funding from reproductive health clinics, including Planned Parenthood.

Except for nutter extreme religious people, I never see anyone objecting to encouraging and promoting the use of contraception.

Altho, as I wrote elsewhere, I do see large numbers of conservatives objecting to subsidizing contraception and those facilities...which then leads to less use and more abortion or more unaffordable/unwanted kids.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't claim that I am the source of my given notion.

Then you chose poorly. It's a stupid notion and you were unable to counter my response. You didnt answer my direct questions. Why not?

The notion is that abortion has a lot of misogynistic attitudes behind it.

That's not news but it doesnt support the claim you made about 'if men got pregnant.' And many women are also pro-life.

Why are you focusing on constitutionality?

Because, under our Const., SCOTUS has found that women have a right to an abortion. (Is this news to you?)

So that when you claimed it would be a different story if men got pregnant...you need to explain how they'd overcome the law.

I don't think so. You haven't defined your terms for late-term, except with vague "no limits" and "never happens" responses to my thoughtful commentary.

I was very specific and defined it exactly. Perhaps you have issues with reading. As a matter of fact, you dont seem to understand what 'no limits' means. What is unclear about that?

And I clearly explained time after time, how late term here = viability and gave the medical determination for that. Again...what didnt you understand?

As for, they never happen, if you disagree, prove it. I told you why they dont. If you disagree, provide the data. Otherwise just admit that it doesnt fit your narrative to agree with it and that you 'dont like it.'

Your one example is highly questionable. You're attempting to bolster it.

That 'one example' is your very poor understanding of late term abortions. Since you so far are unable to understand even this one area of the issue, why would I provide more? Let's see you demonstrate your understanding of this and express how you apply your 'solid principles' to it for purposes of discussion (which is why we're here) and then we can move on.

That's because I haven't. That's because I don't have one. I'm learning, and at some point I may have said principle(s). Maybe not- abortion is a complex moral issue.

I'm trying to unearth your principles. The one I've seen is something like: It's a woman's body, it's her choice. That's not necessarily a poor principle, but I think it's not airtight. For example, an abortion provider can deny her choice by not performing an abortion.

My principles have been very clear on the area we discussed so far. You didnt even recognize them. You are so busy trying to prove you know something...and now to backpedal since you dont have answers...claim you dont

And we havent discussed abortion providers. It's a completely different area. But here you go: No medical professional is forced to perform an abortion, unless they are employed by a facility that demands they do so if the woman's life is in danger. It's a completely different issue...please let me know if you understand that? That in one case, it's about the woman's rights and in this example, it's about the provider's rights.

You seem to be in combat mode.

Nope, I've just provided these responses many times before and I cut and paste many of them right from my OneNote. If you are actually trying to learn something, you are the one being confrontational and writing like you learned everything you need to know from a video.

Go for it.

You believe that elective late term abortion should be illegal. (Read ALL the words) If I'm incorrect, provide the principles you keep referring to and how they apply.

 

[Antiwar]

Then you chose poorly.

No, it's an excellent way to counter the misogynistic comments that typically come along with anti-abortion comments. And it forces people to consider the issue from a different perspective.

You didnt answer my direct questions. Why not?

Probably because it wasn't necessary, just as your increasingly petty tone is unnecessary. If I've missed something important, repeat it in one simple comment (this expansion is already too much) without the fluff.

I was very specific and defined it exactly. Perhaps you have issues with reading. As a matter of fact, you dont seem to understand what 'no limits' means. What is unclear about that?

I understand "no limits." I combined it with your "never happens," and I questioned (and still question) that by providing scenarios where it seems to contradict "never happens," using text from a webpage.

As for, they never happen, if you disagree, prove it.

At some point, I might look up some data. Is all data for the entire world for the past 40 years readily available in one spot?

You believe that elective late term abortion should be illegal.

Incorrect.

If I'm incorrect, provide the principles you keep referring to and how they apply.

As said, I don't have a principle for late-term abortion.

 

[Lursa]

No, it's an excellent way to counter the misogynistic comments that typically come along with anti-abortion comments. And it forces people to consider the issue from a different perspective.

You didnt counter anything. You couldnt refute my points that many women are pro-life as well OR answer how it would be different for men if they got pregnant.

That's not 'excellent' anything. Can you support it now? My refutations still await.

Probably because it wasn't necessary, just as your increasingly petty tone is unnecessary. If I've missed something important, repeat it in one simple comment (this expansion is already too much) without the fluff.

Feel free to look for the sentences that end in question marks. So far, you seem rather intellectually lazy...it's not up to me to help you explore this.

I understand "no limits." I combined it with your "never happens," and I questioned (and still question) that by providing scenarios where it seems to contradict "never happens," using text from a webpage.

You provided one example and your example wasnt in this country for one thing. And then I asked specific questions about it...that were not answered. Why not?

And you are questioning something only because you dont want to believe it. I am very interested in you finding the data that supports your opinion. Or maybe you would explain why you question it?

At some point, I might look up some data. Is all data for the entire world for the past 40 years readily available in one spot?

Not my job. But since you dont even know where to look for the actual data on this issue, is your entire view based on that one video?

If you dont know how to find information, and havent seen other on this issue, you arent prepared for a discussion.

Incorrect.

Great. Please enlighten me.

As said, I don't have a principle for late-term abortion.

I dont believe I know any of your 'principles' for this issue. Are you planning on discussing it?

 

[Antiwar]

One point:

Here's my comment:

No, it's an excellent way to counter the misogynistic comments that typically come along with anti-abortion comments.

Your reply to my above comment:

You didnt counter anything.

My reply: Uhhh, why would I even try to counter something (misogynistic anti-abortion comments) that you haven't posted?