Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by bqknight, May 15, 2019 at 8:12 AM.
No rape or incest clause? Horrible.
This thing, in its very conception, was designed to go to the Supreme Court. It's going to get knocked down at every higher court and the folks from Alabammer who came up with it know this.
If life begins at conception then illegal immigrants who get pregnant in America are carrying American citizens and shouldn't be deported. Also, anyone who is pregnant on welfare should be able to get a welfare check for their unborn living human child as soon as they miss their period.
Where's the push for these changes?
In some states fathers don't even need to pay child support until the baby is born. Why is that?
In my America every 6 week old fetus has full American citizenship and all rights granted to them including the 2nd amendment. I expect little guns to be inserted into the womb, for self defense.
One of the most ignorant things I’ve ever read here , and that’s saying something
In a country where the left is proposing elective abortions until birth, and in a country where one sitting Governor proposed abortion BEYOND birth, it's required that States start taking action to enforce basic constitutional protections of life.
38 states and Federal law recognize the child in utero as a living human being when it comes to violent crimes committed upon pregnant women. 23 of those and the federal statutes recognize the child at any stage of development. Why is that?
If a 6 week old fetus is alive then why are we deporting our own citizens
i think you are right. i think they want to bring this to the supreme court. i hope it fails.
Psh, fake news. Didn't you hear Pence on saturday? Christians are being attacked for their beliefs in America.
This administration is hands down the most mentally unhinged dementia ridden we have seen in the modern era.
Because every bit of logic points to the fact that this is indeed a human life and not some tumor, alien life, or otherwise developing inside the mother. This logic and undeniable fact is only suspended when anti-life people need to make the case for abortion, which always includes a dehumanization of unborn children and the degradation of their mere existence.
It's a lot easier to slaughter something when you convince yourself it's similar to a tumor and not, in fact, a living human life.
The left is not pushing for that. This is nothing more than a made up talking point. Women who get abortions typically do so as early as possible (minus health issues down the road, but in those cases the woman typically wanted to give birth). Absolutely no woman in her right mind is going to carry a child late into her pregnancy and then decide to abort it, and there are many doctors who would never perform that procedure.
If the pro-life movement hadn't pushed for the Roe ruling too early, there would probably be similar laws in place in 30 states.
Really? You may want to tell that to the 2-3 blue states that have already passed laws making elective abortion legal up until birth.
And you're right- no doctor will perform a late term abortion "to save the life" of a mother. They'd deliver the baby. Yet this is what I keep hearing to justify these laws coming from states like NY. So which is it?
There is going to be a major fracture in the pro-abortion crowd coming soon. The majority of them justify it to themselves in ways that already make them uncomfortable. Now with the fringe taking the reigns in pushing for infanticide I have a feeling that a lot of them are going to distance themselves from the politics of the issue and see this for what it is.
Yes, really. Making it legal up until birth is for health reasons. Again, no woman who is thinking clearly is going to carry a baby for 9 months then suddenly decide to abort it. Not to mention, most doctors would not perform that procedure unless it is a health issue. Late term abortions are almost always due to some sort of health issue.
I would say it is just the opposite. I think they pro life crowd are going to be the ones fractured. It is one thing to be opposed to abortion in general. It is quite another to be opposed to it with no exceptions and that involves potentially life long prison sentences for doctors.
So if you are on a 6 week cruise, the child is homeless with no nation?
There were nearly as many abortions past 20 weeks (11.5 k est) last year as there were gun homicides (14k including accidents and justified shootings). Yet one is insignificant and the other is one of the biggest issues in our society. Why is that?
You literally just argued against your own point but I'll just make this really simple - if this was really the intent of these laws, why didn't they specify that it can only be performed for the most critical medical emergencies only? (which again, is a fallacy as complications this late are resolved by delivering the baby, not killing it).
Why not pass bill language like that? Instead the bills have all passed which leave elective abortions 100% legal and allowed up until the point of birth.
They are two separate issues, and I would say both are significant, or we wouldn't have conversations about them.
I didnt say that was the only issue, I said that the primary reason late term abortions happen. Some people also believe in choice. But, both things can be true. I haven't argued against my own point a bit. People can believe in choice, while also realizing that the majority of abortions are early term abortions.
I agree but you said that almost all abortions are done early. I wanted to point out the scale and that you totally minimized it for the sake of painting pro-lifers as crying wolf.
Also you’re wrong about women carrying at terminating late. Do some research and you’ll find that medical reasons are the least of the 5 or 6 reasons women terminate late. The medical justification is made up as well, since they have to deliver the baby one way or another. They should deliver it live. It’s only in the case where the woman decides to kill the baby that they abort if they have to terminate a late term pregnancy.
So basically, Democrats have abandoned the entire premise of "viability" to finally recognize when a child is a child then, yes? There used to be this notion (wrong IMO but still a notion) that many D's opposed abortion past 20 weeks since that was the "point of viability". After that, it was "really a child in there and it deserved protections.
That's gone then, right? You can't just say it's about choice. If we have a child in the womb in the 3rd trimester then that child must be afforded legal protection. That does and should supersede any "choice" at that point.
So all I can deduct from your point is that yes, Democrats are now shifting their opinion to render children in the womb, until birth, as not actually being viable children and not afforded ANY legal protection.
Which is extremist in every way, to say the least.
Most pro-life people hold that position because they believe it is life at conception. Saying that rape or incest are no longer exceptions may make them somewhat uncomfortable but it won't make them question the basis for their position.
If you think THAT's digusting, check these stories out:
We will see how it plays out. THere is an 11 year old girl in Ohio who was raped, and courts have decided she cannot have an abortion. I think plenty of pro life people would think that is monsterous.
I think Democrats stance is the same it has always been, in that abortion should be legal. I personally, and I am sure many others, arent really comfortable with late term abortions, but I also realize that being a guy it has nothing to do with me.
From 03-14 only 1.3% of abortions came after 21 weeks gestation. So yes, I think that implies the majority of abortions are done early. I didnt mininimize anything.
This non answer and recycled talking points tell me that my questions raised uncomfortable realizations for you
So what is the acceptable number of “viable” children to be aborted annually? What percentage?
Clearly that should be zero. If the baby doesn't need the mother to survive then there isnt much rationale left to kill it.
How is it a non answer? The Democratic position hasnt really changed. There are always people who want abortion with no rules around it. Others who are pro choice at certain points, but not beyond a certain point, etc etc. You are the one arguing the Democratic position has changed. It is the Republicans changing the laws, not the Democrats.
But of course this brings up a lot of others issues. I understand what you are saying, but babies obviously need people to survive. So, what happens with the unwanted children now? More orphanages? Are we cool with more food stamps and health benefits to families who cant really afford a child? These are all things that have to go along with restricting abortions.
I'm always interested in how people arrive at the conclusion that life begins at conception, when you can have a single embryo turn into two (or more) embryos in the case of twins (or triplets, etc). So if you have an abortion right after conception, should you be charged with 2 (or more) counts of infantcide?
I hate that last line of rationalization. Life is created by a male and a female. Both have responsibilities and obligations. Saying the man loses any choice also removes responsibilities. Because the man is in the equation does not devalue the woman. Because the woman is carrying the baby does not remove the man’s stake in the child.
Ugh, it’s too long to go into to phrase it exactly right to not get nitpicked apart. But the point is, we need to be reinforcing familial raising of the children, not legislating the other way.