Trump's 15-week abortion ban is not a bad idea.

[choiceone]

i used in vitro for outside the body, like n incubator. That might not be the correct usage, but the point is the same
the state has an interest in protecting viable life - why very late term abortions are generally banned with exceptions for health of mother etc.

Learn the meaning of in vitro and incubator. An IVF pregnancy is one that came from in vitro fertilization of an ovum in a petri dish and then implantation of the embryo inside the woman's uterus. The in vitro embryo is a pre-implantation embryo. If no one wants to have it implanted at that time, it can be frozen. While frozen, it isn't viable because it can't grow.

Once the embryo is implanted inside the woman's body, it can grow, but during the first 21+ weeks, no implanted fetus has ever been proven capable of surviving once removed, not even in an medical incubator. An incubator in these cases depends on the fetus's having lung sack development sufficient that it can breathe oxygen in an incubator.

Even then, it has only a 50/50 chance of survival if removed at 24 weeks, the point termed medical viability.
Doctors routinely take 22 weeks as the point at which they won't perform abortions unless there is a threat to the woman's life or major health functions or the fetus is not viable for some other reason, e.g., incompatible with life itself.

The reason this could be problematic is shown by the Texas case where the fatally deformed twin was threatening the life of the healthy twin and hadn't yet threatened the life of the woman (though it would eventually. The anti-abortion law in Texas wouldn't allow the woman and doctor to stop the growth of the fatally deformed twin in order to save the other twin, so she had to go to Colorado.

Legislators should not make anti-abortion laws that are tantamount to practicing medicine without a license, because they honestly don't know what they're doing.

 

[choiceone]

i said incubators.. forget in vitro if its throwing you off. incubators are for pre-term viable fetus

a pregnancy is not an invasion like a pathogen

Yes, actually, it is as long as the embryo doesn't have the same genetic code as the woman. The woman's immune system is suppressed by the placenta at the chemical direction of the embryo because it would otherwise reject implantation. That suppression forces the immune system to adapt imperfectly, putting a woman at risk of various diseases and causing morning sickness and other abnormalities recognizable as illness, such as gestational diabetes, hypertension, etc.

Im not an expert on this.. 3rd trimester where there is viabilily and signification differentiation of the fetus would be about right

 

[choiceone]

sounds good. recall I didnt want Roe v Wade to be overturned because of chaos like this.
My concern is just not aborting viable fetus - i dont care about abortion other wise.
Many women use it because they can't take care of another child. Im good with that as well.

But please dont call a pregnancy an invasion - that's literally calling it a pathogen

Sorry, but a blastocyst invades the endometrial wall of the uterus. The woman's endometrial wall doesn't grab it to implant it. The blastocyst doesn't fall against the endometrial wall by accident. When it touches the endometrial wall, it actively penetrates it. A woman's immune system responds as if a genetically alien organ is being transplanted into her. If the woman didn't specifically consent to pregnancy, what else can we call it except an invasion?

 

[Brack]

It's more lenient than Belgium's abortion law: legal up to 12 weeks after conception or 14 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

I personally support anything between 20 and 29 weeks. This is in line with other developed countries, such as France, Germany, Japan, etc.

A federal law is needed. We can work out the specifics - risk to health, rape, etc..... but an actual law should be on the books.

I vehemently support contraceptives and even abortion pills. However, there should be gestational limits for an actual abortion procedure. This clarifies such a controversial issue for women, doctors, and society.

I see no Democrat willing to support any gestational law on abortion, even a reasonable one. A Trump pregnancy could finally bring clarity to an issue that badly needs some sort of resolution.

If Trump supports banning abortion nationwide after 15 weeks it's not a bad idea, but it was a bad idea when Pence came out in support of banning abortion nationwide after 15 weeks.

Mike Pence gives finger to Constitution during Republican debate

During last night’s debate, after whining and dinning our ears to how loyal he is to the Constitution, with reference to President Trump and the 2020 election, Mike Pence went on to take a dump on the Constitution by indicating he wants Congressional legislation banning abortion. Pence stated...

debatepolitics.com

 

[weaver2]

It's more lenient than Belgium's abortion law: legal up to 12 weeks after conception or 14 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

I personally support anything between 20 and 29 weeks. This is in line with other developed countries, such as France, Germany, Japan, etc.

And yet you keep talking about 12 and 15 week limits that other countries have. Why? If you are for a 20 to 29 week limit then talk about what is included in the ban you recommend instead of the 12 and 15 week bans.

A federal law is needed. We can work out the specifics - risk to health, rape, etc..... but an actual law should be on the books.

We had a perfectly good federal law Roe v Wade. Religious conservatives worked for 40 years to overturn it. Now that it is gone and everyone is appalled at what ignorant people do when given free rein now you want Roe back.

I vehemently support contraceptives and even abortion pills. However, there should be gestational limits for an actual abortion procedure. This clarifies such a controversial issue for women, doctors, and society.

Texas has very clearly defined limits on abortion. It hasn't helped women who have late term complications.

I see no Democrat willing to support any gestational law on abortion, even a reasonable one.

And you know why women are reluctant to have a federal law the puts a limit on abortions. In one word: Texas. State legislators in the south are just too wound up in controlling their women to write good law. Eventually some woman is going to die a really horrible death because of the poorly written southern anti-abortion laws

A Trump pregnancy could finally bring clarity to an issue that badly needs some sort of resolution.

There you go again talking about making 15 week abortion ban laws. What happened to 20-29 weeks.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

It's more lenient than Belgium's abortion law: legal up to 12 weeks after conception or 14 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

I personally support anything between 20 and 29 weeks. This is in line with other developed countries, such as France, Germany, Japan, etc.

A federal law is needed. We can work out the specifics - risk to health, rape, etc..... but an actual law should be on the books.

I vehemently support contraceptives and even abortion pills. However, there should be gestational limits for an actual abortion procedure. This clarifies such a controversial issue for women, doctors, and society.

I see no Democrat willing to support any gestational law on abortion, even a reasonable one. A Trump pregnancy could finally bring clarity to an issue that badly needs some sort of resolution.

If there is a Trump pregnancy, an abortion is necessary.

 

[Spock]

Medical care is not a religious issue and the intrusion of religious dogma into the discussion of ANY aspect of medicine is problematic.

As a medical procedure, termination of pregnancy should strictly be a discussion between the pregnant female (of any age) and her physician at any time during pregnancy.

Given the complexity of pregnancy and the growing collection of pregnancy-related procedures outside the body, the entire issue has become far to complex for uninvolved strangers in the electorate to decide. The suggestion that males should have ANY power over the choices made by a women is so preposterous that in any other context, it would be the basis for a stand-up comedy routine.

The general public is simply too uninformed about this subject to be responsible for laws related to this medical decision-making.

Furthermore, there is no prevailing social interest in the welfare of, or need for social ownership over, a developing fetus in a female person any more than there is for society to regulate the function of a man's liver or spleen..

 

[BabaVoss]

The government should not be involved in such a decision. Let the people involved deal with it, Personal liberty, you know?

 

[choiceone]

Medical care is not a religious issue and the intrusion of religious dogma into the discussion of ANY aspect of medicine is problematic.

I'm pro-choice, but I'll disagree on the religious issue thing. Any legally competent adult has a right to refuse medical care for themselves even if they'll die, based on freedom of religion. Again, such an adult has I right to refuse to donate blood for a transfusion or an organ for transplant even if the person who will die without it is his/her own child, again based on freedom of religion.

What you mean to refer to, however, is only the intrusion of an alien religious dogma that prevents a legally competent adult accessing medical care, and with this I'll totally agree, of course.

As a medical procedure, termination of pregnancy should strictly be a discussion between the pregnant female (of any age) and her physician at any time during pregnancy.

Given the complexity of pregnancy and the growing collection of pregnancy-related procedures outside the body, the entire issue has become far to complex for uninvolved strangers in the electorate to decide. The suggestion that males should have ANY power over the choices made by a women is so preposterous that in any other context, it would be the basis for a stand-up comedy routine.

The general public is simply too uninformed about this subject to be responsible for laws related to this medical decision-making.

Furthermore, there is no prevailing social interest in the welfare of, or need for social ownership over, a developing fetus in a female person any more than there is for society to regulate the function of a man's liver or spleen..

Thank you.

 

[Top Cat]

As a guy I really feel I have no say in this but 15 weeks does sound reasonable.

Tell that to Amanda.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

It's more lenient than Belgium's abortion law: legal up to 12 weeks after conception or 14 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

I personally support anything between 20 and 29 weeks. This is in line with other developed countries, such as France, Germany, Japan, etc.

A federal law is needed. We can work out the specifics - risk to health, rape, etc..... but an actual law should be on the books.

I vehemently support contraceptives and even abortion pills. However, there should be gestational limits for an actual abortion procedure. This clarifies such a controversial issue for women, doctors, and society.

I see no Democrat willing to support any gestational law on abortion, even a reasonable one. A Trump pregnancy could finally bring clarity to an issue that badly needs some sort of resolution.

Trump said that reversing Roe V Wade from Federal to State was so each State was FREE to decide! So I don't think it's HIS Ban.
He may have an opinion, but he said it 's up to the People in each state.
It would have to cross the line of Viable Life abortion before the Fed Gov who have to step in .....

 

[Spock]

As a guy I really feel I have no say in this but 15 weeks does sound reasonable.

Well, you got that partly right.

 

[Rogue Valley]

 

[noonereal]

Tell that to Amanda.

I don't give a shit. Get it?

 

[Top Cat]

If Trump supports banning abortion nationwide after 15 weeks it's not a bad idea, but it was a bad idea when Pence came out in support of banning abortion nationwide after 15 weeks.

Mike Pence gives finger to Constitution during Republican debate

During last night’s debate, after whining and dinning our ears to how loyal he is to the Constitution, with reference to President Trump and the 2020 election, Mike Pence went on to take a dump on the Constitution by indicating he wants Congressional legislation banning abortion. Pence stated...

debatepolitics.com

Te

Trump said that reversing Roe V Wade from Federal to State was so each State was FREE to decide! So I don't think it's HIS Ban.
He may have an opinion, but he said it 's up to the People in each state.
It would have to cross the line of Viable Life abortion before the Fed Gov who have to step in .....

FFS if you buy that you'll buy anything.

 

[Top Cat]

I don't give a shit. Get it?

That would require intelligence. Got it.

 

[choiceone]

Trump said that reversing Roe V Wade from Federal to State was so each State was FREE to decide! So I don't think it's HIS Ban.
He may have an opinion, but he said it 's up to the People in each state.
It would have to cross the line of Viable Life abortion before the Fed Gov who have to step in .....

Nope. Trump owns the reversal of Roe v Wade along with the Republican senators who confirmed his SC nominees, because he selected them specifically to overturn Roe and they confirmed them for that, too.

Any woman or girl denied an abortion by a state law who dies of complications in late pregnancy or childbirth or is seriously disabled, physically or mentally, has been subject to the criminal negligence of the SC, Trump, those Senate Republicans, and Republican governors and state lawmakers of that state, and those who voted them in.

They are criminals, every one of them, because we all told them in advance what would happen and they simply didn't care.

If a rape victim was denied an abortion by such a law, every person who voted for the lawmakers who voted to have that law as well as the lawmakers who voted for it and governor who signed it into law, are gang rapists.

No mistake about that. That's what they are before God.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

@Top Cat @noonereal, knock it off.

 

[j brown's body]

That's the question for the GOP, of course. They've run for YEARS on the idea that abortion is "murder", that the doctors and nurses that do them are 'baby killers' and we're apparently supposed to take seriously a proposal by Trump to then say, "well, guys, all that stuff we ran on for decades, and the work the pro-life segment of the GOP did for decades to overturn Roe and stop the MURDER OF BABIES? We didn't really mean it!! Sorry!! Now that you have what you wanted all those decades, outright bans in several states, near bans in others, we're going to pass a national law allowing MURDER OF BABIES but only until 15 weeks. Sorry for that - sorry we'll stomp right on those state laws you guys worked so hard to get into reality. Now get on board!! and elect Trump!!"

It's not going to happen, and no one not a moron should take Trump seriously on this. At least I'll give him credit for reading public polling on this, but it's still a Lucy with the football kind of deal.

Yes its very confusing. Based on this, the pro-life crowd supports 90% of abortions.

It's like they'd be satisfied controlling women's bodies just 10% of the time.

Kind of pathetic.

But then, they plan to get rid of it altogether through the courts.