South Carolina Senate Passes 6-Week Abortion Ban

[Gordy327]

I demand we don't allow the killing of unborn life just because its an inconvenience - you bet.

Who are you to demand anything, especially for anyone else?

Don't want to have a baby? Don't do the things that get you preggo. Its really that simple

Or have an abortion if an unwanted pregnancy occurs. It is that simple.

you sound emotional

Projection.

they have the option when they choose sex - the consequences that comes with it they need to own it

So pregnancy is a punishment then. Got it. Of course, abortion is also a "consequence," which some women own too.

why do you think being alive is pain and suffering and why do you get to judge them unworthy of living? I'm very curious to know why you don't see any value in life

What is the "value" of life? I have asked you to explain and/or quantify this "value" many times and you have not done so once. So why should anyone take your assertions of value or life seriously?

 

[Lursa]

No there are no men that carry babies in their uterus. Biology that you rely on for one instance flies out the window in the other?

I'll repeat the facts again: we're dealing with the legal aspects of an issue and there are "legal" men...that's their legal status...that can get pregnant and have abortions.

Biology remains unchanged...you are the one that wants laws to impose 'equal' penalties to a woman's biological consequences...that arent 'biological,' and obviously cant be equal.

Listening to pro-choice folks, their is no baby until born. So the 'choice' would be given and made prior to the abortion deadline.

What "abortion deadline?"

I'm not demanding anything. I am requesting support in order to support your desire to get something you want. You know, politics.

Tell it to the kids and the taxpayers...ask them what they want.

Yup, ridiculous

Fired? Both men and women can use sick days together, there equal. She can of course choose not to have the pregnancy, if the risks outweigh the reward. Men, cannot choose to not have the pregnancy once it has started.

Why did you ignore my other examples? If you want to make 'biology' equal...they both pay the exact same consequences.

After all AFTER the pregnancy when there's a kid...the law holds both financially equal. So then why not make the consequences "equal" during the pregnancy?

You seem to "want your cake and eat it too."

Yep, ridiculous. This ridiculous argument might keep women in the stone ages where they are forced to carry to term babies they'd rather not have but sure stand on your laurels.

Women have never complied with that and wont now. Not with the pills and personal medical devices available. And they'll always be available one way or another.

Laws of States would beg to differ...

No...didnt you read where I corrected that already?

It has yet to be tested so..ok? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

It may not have to be tested because the states realize it will be overturned. So...it's not illegal anywhere for women to have abortions.

YES. Women also take that risk. We have been over and over this.

Uh, every argument you use about men in this regard can be used with women. Men do NOT get to choose what is in their best interest AFTER conception, like women do.

Oh well. again, biology 'isnt fair.' Life isnt fair. Women are the ones that get pregnant, that's not fair. Oh well. Who says it has to be?

Again, post abortion deadline yes.
Not before.

LOL good luck selling that to judicial systems and legislators...make the kids and the taxpayers pay because the non-custodial parents want 'out.' LOLOLOLOL...why do you think we had to institute child support in the first place?

 

[Anthony60]

As I suspected, you have no answers and are just talking BS!

That's you. Constantly asking for what is already provided, changing conditions, etc... Right out of the leftist playbook.

 

[Gordy327]

That's you. Constantly asking for what is already provided, changing conditions, etc... Right out of the leftist playbook.

While you're constantly deflecting and avoiding simple questions or requests.

 

[Anthony60]

You can take your ball and go home anytime but you cant answer the questions. Or...provide the post number where you did.

Are you unable to commit to your own views? If so, are you ashamed? Here's the basics again:

Why is abortion wrong? "Who says?"​

Do you need clarification? "Who says" refers to what authority "says so."

Why is murder wrong?

 

[Lursa]

Why is murder wrong?

Please answer my questions, directly, in good faith, before asking me questions. Then I'll answer yours. You are working so much harder to avoid it, to multiple posters. Tough questions can be tough to answer, are you unable to commit to your own views? Here's the basics again:

Why is abortion wrong? "Who says?"​

Do you need clarification? "Who says" refers to what authority "says so."

 

[ClaraD]

Why is murder wrong?

Is turning off life support for someone who is unable to live on their own wrong?

 

[Gordy327]

Why is murder wrong?

Are you seriously trying to compare or equate abortion with murder?

 

[Gordy327]

Is turning off life support for someone who is unable to live on their own wrong?

Not even a little. Especially if a patient makes that wish known in advance, so there's less issue or problems. The problem is the next of kin who wants to keep support going no matter what, even in defiance of any wishes to the contrary made.

 

[Gordy327]

Please answer my questions, directly, in good faith, before asking me questions.

He's not interested in good faith debating.

 

[ClaraD]

Not even a little. Especially if a patient makes that wish known in advance, so there's less issue or problems. The problem is the next of kin who wants to keep support going no matter what, even in defiance of any wishes to the contrary made.

indeed...mine is in black and white. If I am alive on my own with the exception of a feeding tube..;.sure let me continue for a time. If I am brain dead and only the machines are keeping me there...let me go.

 

[Gordy327]

indeed...mine is in black and white. If I am alive on my own with the exception of a feeding tube..;.sure let me continue for a time. If I am brain dead and only the machines are keeping me there...let me go.

I share the same position for myself. If I cannot have any meaningful recovery or quality of life, pull the plug. If I am brain dead, then keep me going until my organs are harvested, as I am a donor. Beyond that, I can be donated to a medical school as a cadaver or grind my up and put me in cans of dog food for all I care.

 

[Anthony60]

Are you seriously trying to compare or equate abortion with murder?

We have a winner.

 

[Gordy327]

We have a winner.

Which means you lost.

 

[jgarden47]

1) This cartoon is far closer to the truth than one might assume at first glance!

2) While Republican politicians in state legislatures are actively engaged in passing laws restricting a woman's access to abortions, House Republican politicians at the federal level are demanding that the Democrats defund the nation's SOCIAL PROGRAMS" - as the price for their support in raising the "DEBT CEILING" and preventing the government from defaulting on its national debt!

3) Given that Republican Speaker has stated that the military budget, along with government revenues supporting MEDICAID and MEDICARE, are excluded from the negotiations - McCarthy has also steadfastly refused to raise the tax rate on the wealthy, billionaires like Donald Trump, many of whom already pay little or no federal taxes, this should come as no surprise, given the hefty contributions made to "bankroll" political campaigns to keep it that way!

4) In 2022, the US Federal Budget was $6.3 trillion if which $4.1 trillion (70%) was designated for "MANDATORY" spending
- Major Healthcare Programs (Medicare, Medicaid) - $1,442 billion
- Social Security -$1,213 billion
- Income Security Programs - $581 billion
- Student Loans - $482 billion
- Federal Employees retirement Benefits - $187 billion
- Military Retirement Benefits - $161 billion
- Other Programs - $345 billion

5) As "Mandatory" expenditures increase, "DISCRETIONARY" spending has undergone a corresponding decrease as a % - at present it has been reduced to 25% of the Federal Budget - while that represents $1.7 trillion, $800.2 billion of that has been designated for the US Military, which is exempt from Republican "cuts!"

 

[jgarden47]

6) The remaining $0.9 trillion of "DISCRETIONARY SPENDING" in the 2022 Budget, allocated for no-defense/domestic programs which given Speaker McCarthy's "ground rules,": represents the only part of the budget available to contribute to the $6.27 trillion in Republican projected cuts over the next 10 years!

7) That would result in an average reduction in "DOMESTIC SPENDING" of $0.627 trillion per year - that translates into a net loss of approximately 2/3 of the current $0.9 trillion currently allocated to the non-defensive part of the "DISCRETIONARY BUDGET," a reduction that effectively "guts" most of the departments listed below!
- Veteran Benefits - $131 billion
- Transportation - $126.7 billion
- Education and Social Services - $118 billion
- Health - $105,3 billion
- Law Enforcement (Department of Justice, FBI, Secret Service, Capitol Police ,,,) - $81.2 billion
- International Affairs (embassies, foreign aid ...) - $79.8 billion
- Housing - $64.3 billion
- Environment $50.2 billion
- Income Security - $43.7 billion
- Science and Technology - $42.4 billion
- General Government - $22.6 billion
- Energy $13.4 billion

8) As state Republican are implementing legislation attempting to force women to have "full-term" pregnancies, their federal counterparts are actively working at "CROSS-PURPOSES"- attempting to defund the very government departments and agencies which pregnant women and/or those with young children, particularly caught in "the poverty cycle," need the most!

9) Thanks to congressional Republicans, any major reductions in the budgets of the Departments of Health, Education, Social Services, Housing and Income security will only make the lives of the nation's pregnant women, and those with children, that much more difficult - a counterproductive approach that will only serve to encourage prospective young mothers to seek abortions!

FOOTNOTE: While the Speaker and House Republicans claim to be concerned about the growing federal debt, to which the Trump Administration contributed $7 trillion in 4 years, given the dramatic decrease, over the last 20 years, of the net interest on the national debt as a % of the US Federal Debt, only brings their motives further into question

The above graphs indicate that the relative cost of servicing the national debt decrease from 13% in 2000 to 6% in 2010 and finally 5% in 2020 - the potential consequences associated with the congressional Republicans to default on the national debt could;

a) trigger a "Recession" which in turn would result in substantially decreasing tax revenues and increasing expenditures to cope with rising unemployment rates - all of which would contribute to the national debt

b) starting in 2011, America received repeated warnings from the world's 3 major credit rating agencies - Standard and Poor downgraded its "AAA" rating to "AA+" in response to Republican 'political brinkmanship," which results in higher interest rates

c) fast forward to 2023, on May 25th several credit rating agencies downgraded the credit rating of the US federal government from "AAA" due to "political gridlock" which threatens to negatively impact the pricing of trillions of dollars of Treasury debt securities

https://www.cbo.gov/publi25cation/58890#:~:text=Discretionary%20outlays%20by%20the%20federal,response%20to%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic.

Mandatory Spending in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic | Congressional Budget Office

Mandatory outlays by the federal government totaled $4.1 trillion in 2022; nearly half was for Social Security and Medicare. The largest increases over the past 20 years have been for the major health care programs and student loans.

www.cbo.gov

Explainer: US debt ceiling focus on 'discretionary spending' means cuts ahead

The central pillar of any debt-ceiling agreement between President Joe Biden and House Republican Kevin McCarthy is shaping up to be "discretionary spending" - the chunk of the United States' roughly $6 trillion annual federal budget that is set annually by Congress.

www.reuters.com

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.p

 

[stealthycat]

once again...almost all of the anti abortion states do not make exceptions for children impregnated through molestation, rape or drug addiction. So, what precisely would they do to not get preggo?

How does a child choose to have sex?

Being alive can be pain and suffering...and that is a fact. I was abused by my grandmother and my mother was unable to care for me. My grandmother suffered from severe, untreated mental illness. I am a decent adult, after years and years of therapy...but yes, suffering is sometimes not better than not being alive. Fortunately, I never liked drugs or alcohol, because I would have been addicted to both....I couldn't stand the taste of alcohol and didn't like the effect of the drugs on my memory function...and that includes some of the anxiety drugs out there. I take adderall, because without it I cannot drive safely....but that is the only 'drug' I take other than my thyroid meds that I need to stay alive. I have taken adderall for years, not once have I allowed them to increase the dose and if I am not driving, I take a break from it...even though it screws up my organization....its nice to not have it in my system. So, as a result I would make a rotten addict. My life as a kid sucked so bad that I had wished multiple times my mother had not had me...but abortion was illegal when I was born. My life as an adult is under my control, but it doesn't change the pain of my childhood. Others like me take it in their own hands and commit suicide, or kill themselves through addiction. Sometimes it is best for a person to mind their own damn business and let the person who will live with it, make that choice....it's not for you to decide.

but its also only about 3-4% of the total killed unborn's that are from rape/incest - the other 95-96% are for convenience

I don't understand - your life, like some people's lives you seem to believe are better terminated because of pain and suffering, was filled with pain and suffering .... are you saying you'd been better off killed early in your life ?

in the bold - you argue exceptionally hard for the choice/decision that allows for unborn's to be killed ..... have you considered minding your own business and not being involved ?

 

[stealthycat]

1) This cartoon is far closer to the truth than one might assume at first glance!

2) While Republican politicians in state legislatures are actively engaged in passing laws restricting a woman's access to abortions, House Republican politicians at the federal level are demanding that the Democrats defund the nation's SOCIAL PROGRAMS" - as the price for their support in raising the "DEBT CEILING" and preventing the government from defaulting on its national debt!

3) Given that Republican Speaker has stated that the military budget, along with government revenues supporting MEDICAID and MEDICARE, are excluded from the negotiations - McCarthy has also steadfastly refused to raise the tax rate on the wealthy, billionaires like Donald Trump, many of whom already pay little or no federal taxes, this should come as no surprise, given the hefty contributions made to "bankroll" political campaigns to keep it that way!

4) In 2022, the US Federal Budget was $6.3 trillion if which $4.1 trillion (70%) was designated for "MANDATORY" spending
- Major Healthcare Programs (Medicare, Medicaid) - $1,442 billion
- Social Security -$1,213 billion
- Income Security Programs - $581 billion
- Student Loans - $482 billion
- Federal Employees retirement Benefits - $187 billion
- Military Retirement Benefits - $161 billion
- Other Programs - $345 billion

5) As "Mandatory" expenditures increase, "DISCRETIONARY" spending has undergone a corresponding decrease as a % - at present it has been reduced to 25% of the Federal Budget - while that represents $1.7 trillion, $800.2 billion of that has been designated for the US Military, which is exempt from Republican "cuts!"

no, it isn't even close

 

[stealthycat]

Let me put that bullshit to rest with one question to you. Was the debt ceiling raised three times under trump?

yes - every single time there has been compromises/negotiations and our national debt (not the Govt's, OUR debt) continues to soar

RIGHT NOW GOP is trying to do something about it, DNC wants to continue the gross spending though

but you are right, this whole mess IS a combined GOP/DNC issue

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Here in Austria, we have a 12-13 weeks abortion law.

In fact, almost all European countries ban the practice after 12 to 13 weeks.

Only the UK, Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries (except Denmark and Finland) allow for abortions until the 20th or 25th week.

Do European laws make any exceptions or rape, incest, and maternal health?

 

[Cope]

I'll repeat the facts again: we're dealing with the legal aspects of an issue and there are "legal" men...that's their legal status...that can get pregnant and have abortions.

Biology remains unchanged...you are the one that wants laws to impose 'equal' penalties to a woman's biological consequences...that arent 'biological,' and obviously cant be equal.

Um, it's ALL biological when talking about pregnancies, whether you want to lable someone 'man' or woman', only biological females can get pregnant.

What "abortion deadline?"

You know, the laws that state they have until X weeks to get one.

Tell it to the kids and the taxpayers...ask them what they want.

Why? They don't craft policy.

Why did you ignore my other examples? If you want to make 'biology' equal...they both pay the exact same consequences.

No, they don't. As soon as a 50-50 arrangement is made STANDARD, then maybe they will be be offered the same consequences. It isn't that way now, now will it be in the next few decades but it is slowly moving that direction.

Which is primarily irrelevant to my argument. The argument isn't and hasn't been about consequences. It is about choices. The choices to have or not have the baby are lopsided, in favor of the mother. The choices to support the baby are equal.
The only way you could possibly hope to affect the choice of the mother to have or not have is to give her all the pertinent information. One of those pieces of information are: The father does not want to be a father, and will not support this child. Then she can choose.

After all AFTER the pregnancy when there's a kid...the law holds both financially equal. So then why not make the consequences "equal" during the pregnancy?

You keep bringing this up. It's irrelevant to the argument I have put forth. We aren't talking about AFTER, we are talking about before their is a KID (which is also AFTER impregnation)

You seem to "want your cake and eat it too."

Not at all. I want equality. If that happens to lessen the amount of kids are born to unwed people, GREAT SIDE BENEFIT!

Women have never complied with that and wont now. Not with the pills and personal medical devices available. And they'll always be available one way or another.

I don't care about women's compliance. You are a strong proud woman. Good on you, but again, this has no relevance.

No...didnt you read where I corrected that already?



It may not have to be tested because the states realize it will be overturned. So...it's not illegal anywhere for women to have abortions.



Oh well. again, biology 'isnt fair.' Life isnt fair. Women are the ones that get pregnant, that's not fair. Oh well. Who says it has to be?

Yes. Oh well, women can have consequence free sex all they want and compel the men they have sex with to support an unwanted (by him) child.

LOL good luck selling that to judicial systems and legislators...make the kids and the taxpayers pay because the non-custodial parents want 'out.' LOLOLOLOL...why do you think we had to institute child support in the first place?

We had to institute child support for the very reason that you want women to have consequence free sex.

 

[ClaraD]

but its also only about 3-4% of the total killed unborn's that are from rape/incest - the other 95-96% are for convenience

I don't understand - your life, like some people's lives you seem to believe are better terminated because of pain and suffering, was filled with pain and suffering .... are you saying you'd been better off killed early in your life ?

in the bold - you argue exceptionally hard for the choice/decision that allows for unborn's to be killed ..... have you considered minding your own business and not being involved ?

90% of that number use mifepristone which is an early termination. So, stop with the nonsense.

 

[Gordy327]

you considered minding your own business and not being involved ?

You first!

 

[Lursa]

but its also only about 3-4% of the total killed unborn's that are from rape/incest - the other 95-96% are for convenience

Why do you keep posting this lie? Unless you consider everything in your life a convenience...do you? Do/would you teach your children that their health is a convenience? That keeping a job and putting food on the table, keeping a roof over your family's heads, is a 'convenience? Doing your job properly for your employer is 'a convenience?' Finishing your high school education is 'a convenience?' Is fulfilling your obligations and commitments to church, community, society, etc 'a convenience?'

Please answer that...yes or no? I mean, you may value everything and everyone else in your life so little, as just conveniences, but most people value their lives, their loved ones, and their obligations to others more. And just because you hold life...every day life...so cheaply doesnt mean you can force your sad opinion on others.

9 months of pregnancy, sickness, debilitation, and exhaustion risks all these things.

 

[Lursa]

Um, it's ALL biological when talking about pregnancies, whether you want to lable someone 'man' or woman', only biological females can get pregnant.

Sure, but they're legally males and covered under the law equally...as males.

You know, the laws that state they have until X weeks to get one.

What about it? It means women have to travel unfortunately but it doenst make those abortions a crime.

Why? They don't craft policy.

But they are stuck with the bill. You are complaining about equality and fairness...please explain how it's equal or fair for the people that DIDINt produce the kid having to pay for the share for one or both of the people that DID produce the kid.

The state has an obligation to protect the child and the taxpayers.

Dont hide from this...this is the end result of what you want to demand. Address it directly...how do you justify this if the parents are available?

No, they don't. As soon as a 50-50 arrangement is made STANDARD, then maybe they will be be offered the same consequences. It isn't that way now, now will it be in the next few decades but it is slowly moving that direction.

There is no 50-50 arrangement to make standard...because that choice affects others. The kids and the taxpayers.

So figure out a real-life % for choice and get back to me. If the kids and taxpayers get an equal piece of the pie...then that will end up 50% against your 25% choicer right there. Then what choice do you think the women would make?

Choices...equal? Great...everyone gets a piece of the pie. Looks like men would lose.

Which is primarily irrelevant to my argument. The argument isn't and hasn't been about consequences. It is about choices. The choices to have or not have the baby are lopsided, in favor of the mother. The choices to support the baby are equal.
The only way you could possibly hope to affect the choice of the mother to have or not have is to give her all the pertinent information. One of those pieces of information are: The father does not want to be a father, and will not support this child. Then she can choose.

See above.

You keep bringing this up. It's irrelevant to the argument I have put forth. We aren't talking about AFTER, we are talking about before their is a KID (which is also AFTER impregnation)

It doesnt matter because if there is a kid, no arrangement you are imagining is legal.

OTOH you do now seem to be revealing another motive (one that others have used): using this ability to walk away to convince women to have the abortions. To manipulate or coerce the women into having the abortion. Is this the case? Please say. From your arguments now, it seems the case.

it is a Hail Mary for sure, and an admission, a realization the laws for child support wont change...because they are equal. So men have recognized they have to convince the women to 'get rid of it' before there is a kid.

Not at all. I want equality. If that happens to lessen the amount of kids are born to unwed people, GREAT SIDE BENEFIT!

What rights arent equal? I've asked a few times now. If you want 'fairness,' then I await the justification for shifting the burden of either parent's 'choices' onto the kids and taxpayers.

Yes. Oh well, women can have consequence free sex all they want and compel the men they have sex with to support an unwanted (by him) child.

Why repeat a lie? If a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences...abortion is painful and costly. You just want men to ALSO be able to choose the woman's consequences...Good lord. That makes men sound pathetic...if you cant handle her deciding, dont sleep with her, dont whine and try to take away her choices. That's not 'a man.'

We had to institute child support for the very reason that you want women to have consequence free sex.

No, that's wrong. It was implemented because men were leaving kids/families behind in poverty. Just walking away. From relationships and marriages. And until DNA testing, lots of them still got away with it. But many fewer today.