Bill that bans abortions 20 weeks into pregnancy passes House

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The Lunatic:

Let me know when women stop outliving men due to their easier and less stressful lifestyles.

What makes you think that's why women live longer? Suspect there's the possibility than men are much more likely to engage in high-risk (and high-pleasure) activities like smoking, drinking and poor diet, which are all major contributors to long-term being dead.

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Snip

Define your terms. What is "something" in this regard?

So I'm sexist because I disagree with the women who thought that women getting the vote would bad thing, because by your logic, that's me thinking I know what's better for woman than women...oh. I see what you did there. You tried to paint me as thinking I know better than all women. All women. When in reality I'm only disagreeing with some. So tell me Inu-Kun. Whenever a woman talks about an issue around women, I'm supposed to bow to her logic and not question any of it lest I be sexist? And when another woman expresses views utterly opposite to the first woman, I will bow to her logic as well. Because according to you, that's how you aren't sexist. Even though just about every time you talk to a woman about woman's issues on this website you disagree with them, I'm sexist and you're not because moon logic. And Inu-Kun, I'm starting to think that you honestly have no idea how opinions work. When I pointed out that my opinion was that women should do what they want, you somehow made the jump that that meant I, somehow, wanted to enforce my will on women. Uh-huh. At this rate I'm just waiting for this to be made into proof that Free Masons run the country.

I'm sure it seems that way to the Erttheking that exists in your head, who probably rapes puppies and then eats them alive, because you'll come up with any twisted bullshit to paint me as being the bad guy in this situation. I notice a couple of people on this website who keep doing that. When they can't properly format arguments, they just insult me on the filmiest of pretenses. I'm sexist because I have a strong opinion that women should be allowed to do what they want. How desperate are you to make me the bad guy here? If you've gotten this far, that you're making accusations that out there, I think we both know it's because your arguments never had a crooked leg to stand on and you're trying to distract from that.

Not that you'll ever be honest enough to admit it.

Abortion post 20 weeks.

I get you don't want to actually refer to the quote of what you said and rather put the strawmen of "women getting the right to vote" to approve of your deciding for women what is harmful for them. So just tell me, what are your "strong opinions on how women should act and think"?

erttheking:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/house-vote-abortion-after-20-week-ban/index.html

Long story short, if this bill passes in the senate, abortions will not be allowed 20 weeks into a pregnancy unless the mother's life is endangered or the child was the product of rape or incest. Quick question, in a lot of red states it's legal to marry your cousin, does that count as incest by this bill?

I just find it funny. GOP Congressmen loves to talk about how much they care about these children, and how they want these kids to be able to experience life. Yet the second the kid gets out of the womb, they give zero fucks about them. Abortions are common among the poor after all, and the GOP is very much against even the most basic of support for poor families. Between this, Trump cutting foreign abortion aid, and that little bill in Arkansas that requires a raped woman to get a permission slip from her rapist in order to get an abortion, I really feel like this country isn't treating women very well on this issue.

So, because it's depressingly relevant.

I think you're mixing two issues which don't necessarily connect.
The abortion debate isn't about the moral obligation of the state to ensure people live happy and rich lives. It's about the state protecting the basic right not to be "murdered" of human beings. The burden of child caring still lies in the parents' hands.

And while we can have a lot of arguments about whether or not an unborn "child" at X weeks of pregnancy can be considered a "human being", as far as I know there is no scientific consensus on that. All we can agree on is that the further we are in the pregnancy the higher the odds are it has grown into what can be commonly considered a human being. So deciding on whether or not you allow abortions at certain stages of growth is about finding a balance between a woman's right on her own body and the chance said right actually results in murder. And in my opinion 20 weeks is very reasonable.

Mind you i'm here trying to judge the proposal without taking into consideration who is proposing it (the GOP), because that's how proposals should be judged: on their own merit. Otherwise you could shut down most proposals from politicians on the grounds of their hypocrisy, inconsistency, etc.

generals3:
20 weeks is very reasonable.

It's also worth noting that most European countries have the cutoff at 12 weeks. With a couple (Such as the UK) going out to 22-24 weeks.

As such, by comparison 20 weeks, is actually fairly progressive.

inu-kun:

I get you don't want to actually refer to the quote of what you said and rather put the strawmen of "women getting the right to vote" to approve of your deciding for women what is harmful for them. So just tell me, what are your "strong opinions on how women should act and think"?

Hey, Inu-Kun? That quote of what I said? I think we need to take a closer look at it, because I'm not actually sure your read it. The fact that you have to ask what my opinions are is kind of a dead giveaway. I'm pretty sure you saw "I have opinions on how women should act" and then you instantly said "YAY! I CAN CALL HIM SEXIST INSTEAD OF HAVING ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!" But let's take an actual look at it, shall we?

Also, yeah, I do have strong opinions on how women should act and think. The way they want to, without other people forcing their beliefs on them. Including that of other women. It's called pro-CHOICE for a reason.

My views on women are that they should be allowed to act without other people forcing their views on them. I have pointed this out to you multiple times. The fact that you have not recognized it suggests to me one of two things. That it's either a concept too difficult for you to understand, or you're being deliberately disingenuous. Or maybe there's a third option where you somehow think women being allowed to act and think the way they want to is somehow actually deeply sexist, and I'd just love to hear your reasoning on that one, since you seem to really think this is somehow sexist.

So please, how am I sexist again? Watching you desperately try to follow up on this point of logic is interesting to say the least. You think criticizing opinions means I want to enforce my will and not want people to have any other opinions, you think me thinking women should be allowed to do what the want is sexist, you have a very interesting take on being able to understand other people's arguments Inu-Kun. And when I say that, I mean that the strawman argument seems to be the only string to your bow. What does it say about your arguments that you have so little faith in them that you keep relying on strawman instead?

The Lunatic:

generals3:
20 weeks is very reasonable.

It's also worth noting that most European countries have the cutoff at 12 weeks. With a couple (Such as the UK) going out to 22-24 weeks.

As such, by comparison 20 weeks, is actually fairly progressive.

How is "less than we have now" a progressive move?

erttheking:
snip

I see I'm wasting my time here since you clearly don't want to answer the question since it can't be answered in a way that's not sexist or evasive.

"The way they want to, without other people forcing their beliefs on them." doesn't mean anything as it's impossible to know whether a person believes things or was forced to (edit: and you can't automatically take the idea that women only believe in something due to being forced than having their own moral compass), doesn't make sense unless you believe it shouldn't apply to males (Edit: otherwise why make the distinction of women) and self contradictory due to obvious reasons (Edit: Forcing people to do things you believe are only due to being forced on).

inu-kun:

erttheking:
snip

I see I'm wasting my time here since you clearly don't want to answer the question since it can't be answered in a way that's not sexist or evasive.

"The way they want to, without other people forcing their beliefs on them." doesn't mean anything as it's impossible to know whether a person believes things or was forced to, doesn't make sense unless you believe it shouldn't apply to males and self contradictory due to obvious reasons.

I answered your goddamn question. I answered it very clearly what my strong opinions were. But as we established, it seems to be a concept you can't seem to grasp, or you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Yeah, it does mean anything, and your desperate attempt to go "well you don't KNOW if it's really what someone thinks without outside influence," is just another one of your attempts to deflect this in a desperate attempt to paint me as the bad guy. I can't truly know? If you're going down that route, it's really no different from the whiny garbage that Adachi was spouting in Persona 4 about how "you can never know who someone is 100%." And my reply to you is the same reply I have to him. So fucking what? It doesn't make sense unless I think it shouldn't apply to males? Ok Inu-Kun, you've been saying things that make utterly zero sense in a desperate attempt to say "I think they should be allowed to do and think what they want without other people forcing their views on them," is somehow a bad view (so what? You think people should have viewpoints and beliefs forced on them?) but it's hypocritical to think the same should apply to men? Congrats Inu-Kun. You're officially making less than zero sense. Because I do believe the same concept should apply to men. Then again I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that toxic masculinity is a thing, mainly because I grew up around teenage boys and I know how utterly pig headed they can be in the name of mindless masculinity. And if they want to be stupid, that's their business, but they commonly shame anyone who doesn't conform to their idea of mindless machismo, usually by implying that they're sexually attracted to men, and that that's a bad thing. I was on the receiving end of that garbage in high school. But then again, I think about this stuff outside of coming up with half baked strawman arguments retorts to someone on the internet. So please tell me how I was wrong to think that people trying to force their viewpoints on me was a bad thing. Please, I'm really edger to hear this.

God, the depths people will sink to in a desperate attempt to paint their ideological opponents as evil. Sit down and properly explain your points or stop wasting my fucking time with your smear tactics.

And you'll probably just ignore half of this so you can continue to clamp your ears over your head and go "nu-uh, you're sexist, I said you're sexist so I automatically win."

inu-kun:
(edit: and you can't automatically take the idea that women only believe in something due to being forced than having their own moral compass)

Are you incapable of making an argument that isn't a strawman? Because I never said anything like that. Once again, I'm just wondering if my arguments are something you can't understand or if you're deliberately lying about me.

inu-kun:
(Edit: otherwise why make the distinction of women)

Because we were talking about women. Shock of all shocks, when I'm talking to someone about dogs and I say dogs shouldn't be abused, that isn't me saying that I think cats should be abused because I didn't happen to talk about them at that very second. You are getting REALLY desperate here.

inu-kun:
(Edit: Forcing people to do things you believe are only due to being forced on).

Ok, that sentence doesn't make any grammatical sense, not does it make any argumentative sense. The best I can get out of it is that you're arguing that I'm in favor of purging beliefs that I was under the false impression were forced on women, which is an interesting theory that falls apart due to the fact that you have nothing backing it up except for the fact that you want it to be really really true.

You must really hate me if you're so desperate to try and twist me saying people shouldn't have views pushed on them into a bad thing. Why? What did I do to earn this level of hatred from you?

Don't know about anyone else, but I have complete faith in the republicans that they honestly care about women's rights and are not just 'virtue signalling' to their religious conservative voter base here with something that only benefits a certain type of person's feeling of self-righteousness while doing more damage to lives of the poor than anything else.

Complete. Faith.

altnameJag:

The Lunatic:

generals3:
20 weeks is very reasonable.

It's also worth noting that most European countries have the cutoff at 12 weeks. With a couple (Such as the UK) going out to 22-24 weeks.

As such, by comparison 20 weeks, is actually fairly progressive.

How is "less than we have now" a progressive move?

I would argue that in this case more doesn't always mean "more progressive". Surely you wouldn't call allowing "post natal abortions" to be progressive?

generals3:

altnameJag:

The Lunatic:

It's also worth noting that most European countries have the cutoff at 12 weeks. With a couple (Such as the UK) going out to 22-24 weeks.

As such, by comparison 20 weeks, is actually fairly progressive.

How is "less than we have now" a progressive move?

I would argue that in this case more doesn't always mean "more progressive". Surely you wouldn't call allowing "post natal abortions" to be progressive?

I don't see why not, considering it's literally impossible. That's how words work. You can't abort a child, only a fetus.

altnameJag:
I don't see why not, considering it's literally impossible. That's how words work. You can't abort a child, only a fetus.

Definitions change over time. It could easily be made possible by changing the legal definition of it.

This law is such a weird thing to push for. It's pretty rare to find a woman who has been pregnant for that long who wants an abortion that hasn't been having complications with her pregnancy. Like... It's total fear mongering. Either she wanted on the whole time but was having trouble accessing one, or she's having a medical emergency. But I'm sure folks think they are stopping fighty women from suddenly choosing to get an abortion several months after being pregnant...

Hurray for our glorious hero's!/s

generals3:

altnameJag:
I don't see why not, considering it's literally impossible. That's how words work. You can't abort a child, only a fetus.

Definitions change over time. It could easily be made possible by changing the legal definition of it.

What, like "pro-life" legislators allowing helth insurance programs fro poor kids expire and supporting policies that cause a rise in infant and maternal mortality rates?

altnameJag:
What, like "pro-life" legislators allowing helth insurance programs fro poor kids expire and supporting policies that cause a rise in infant and maternal mortality rates?

Relevance of that response? None.

I never discussed ""pro-life" legislators" nor any other of their policies. This is about abortion rights, not welfare policies.

generals3:

altnameJag:
What, like "pro-life" legislators allowing helth insurance programs fro poor kids expire and supporting policies that cause a rise in infant and maternal mortality rates?

Relevance of that response? None.

I never discussed ""pro-life" legislators" nor any other of their policies. This is about abortion rights, not welfare policies.

When abortion restrictions are pushed for by the same people that also try to suppress birth control and remove help single moms and poor families qualify for, it seems relevant to me.

This isn't happening in a vacuum.

altnameJag:
When abortion restrictions are pushed for by the same people that also try to suppress birth control and remove help single moms and poor families qualify for, it seems relevant to me.

This isn?t happening in a vacuum.

Let me quote myself: "Mind you i'm here trying to judge the proposal without taking into consideration who is proposing it (the GOP), because that's how proposals should be judged: on their own merit. Otherwise you could shut down most proposals from politicians on the grounds of their hypocrisy, inconsistency, etc."

I have no issues with you disagreeing with other policies on the grounds they suck. But they don't affect this one. Mainly considering we're not talking about actually banning abortions entirely (20 weeks is plenty of time, and a lot more than most progressive countries allow). And as far as I am aware abortion rights are not about "economic welfare" but about a woman's body and the idea that said abortion may or may not be murder. Therefor the impact of the other policies on the rightfulness of the policy itself is quasi nonexistent. Now you may use all that as a way to judge the legislators by putting all the pieces together, but as far as I know I was in no way judging the legislators, hence it being irrelevant.

Now if they tried to pass a law forcing a delay of 20 weeks before being able to ask for an abortion, than that would be highly relevant as it would render abortions (quasi) impossible.

generals3:
Snip

Not entirely attached to your current discussion, but...I would like to shut down proposals and ideas from politicians who are demonstratably bad. To be fair, there would be some amount of leeway so that they can be seen proposing bad ideas, and then like a bartender who's said you've had enough, cut you off and give other people a chance to speak, for once. I cannot guarantee total improvement, but I can save us a great deal of unnecessary shit-show this way. Would it be so bad, putting noted cranks on a short leash until other people get a turn?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

renegade7:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

That being said, 20 weeks? Whats the problem with that? Have you seen a pregnant woman at 20 weeks? Have you seen a baby at 20 weeks? 20 weeks is more than half the pregnancy. Has the status quo shifted to the point where some chick can decide "fuck my baby" 2 weeks before birth and its perfectly acceptable?

After 20 weeks, women who seek abortions do so almost exclusively because of emergencies. Furthermore, less than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

And if the pregnancy was the result of rape, then the burden would fall on the woman to prove that she was raped. Incidentally, Republican state legislatures have recently been slashing funding for rape kit processing, and that's before we take into account the fact that only a small fraction of rapists are actually convicted.

Do you have any sources with solid numbers on that first claim?

The second bit has nothing to do with the topic.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm

In 2009, most (64.0%) abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.7% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.0%) were performed at 14-20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation.

altnameJag:

The Lunatic:

generals3:
20 weeks is very reasonable.

It's also worth noting that most European countries have the cutoff at 12 weeks. With a couple (Such as the UK) going out to 22-24 weeks.

As such, by comparison 20 weeks, is actually fairly progressive.

How is "less than we have now" a progressive move?

May not be "progressive", but it definitely is pragmatic.

The "20 week" limit doesn't seem to be broken anyway unless it's really an emergency, just looking at the numbers.

But then again, I live in Denmark where the law is

Law No. 350 of 13 June 1973 on the interruption of pregnancy.:
1. A woman domiciled in Denmark shall be entitled to undergo an abortion provided that the procedure can be performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, after application of the provisions of Section 8, the woman persists in her desire to have her pregnancy terminated.
2. A woman may undergo an abortion without special authorization, even after the 12th week of pregnancy has elapsed, if the procedure is necessary to avert a risk to her life or of serious deterioration of her physician or mental health, and this risk is based solely or principally on circumstances of a medical character.
3. (1) After the 12th week of pregnancy has elapsed, a woman domiciled in Denmark may be granted authorization for an abortion in the following cases:
1. pregnancy, childbirth, or care of the child entail a risk of deterioration of the woman's health on account of an existing or potential physician or mental illness or infirmity or as a consequence of other aspects of the conditions under which she is living;
2. the woman has become pregnant under the circumstances referred to in Section 210 or Sections 216-224 of the Civil Criminal Code;
3. there is a danger that, on account of a hereditary condition or of an injury or disease during embryonic or fetal life, the child will be affected by a serious physician or mental disorder;
4. the woman is incapable of giving proper care to a child, on account of a physical or mental disorder or feeble-mindedness;
5. on account of her youth or immaturity, the woman is for the time being incapable of giving proper care to a child;
6. it can be assumed that pregnancy, childbirth, or care of a child constitute a serious burden to the woman, which cannot otherwise be averted, and it therefore appears essential for the pregnancy to be terminated, taking into account the interests of the woman, the management of her household, or the care of her other children. In reaching the decision, consideration shall be paid to the woman's age, the effort involved in her occupation, and her personal circumstances in other respects, as well as the circumstances of the family from the point of view of housing, income and health.
(2) Authorization for abortion may be granted only if the grounds on which the application is based are sufficiently important to justify subjecting the woman to the increased risk to her health which the procedure entails.

Which basically sums up as, women are free to get abortions, no muss, no fuss, as long as you haven't passed the 12 week limit. If you have passed the 12 week limit, and there's some danger to the life of the mother or the child, the prospective mother is extremely young, or if the pregnancy was started as a result of a rape, or if the child would place unnecessary burden on the existing household, you can still get an abortion.

Honestly, in my eyes, I'd take that "20 week" limit, just to get the political opposition to shut up, or maybe use it as a bargaining-chip for something you want (like more easily accessible abortion clinics).

So, Trump is trying to end the rules regarding employer healthcare having to cover birth control.

Which, in addition to a laundry list of non-pregnancy related conditions that's going to harm women, is going to up the demand for abortions.

Which they're simultaneously looking to limit more of.

Which is going to lead to a higher maternal death rate.

Super.

altnameJag:
So, Trump is trying to end the rules regarding employer healthcare having to cover birth control.

Which, in addition to a laundry list of non-pregnancy related conditions that's going to harm women, is going to up the demand for abortions.

Which they're simultaneously looking to limit more of.

Which is going to lead to a higher maternal death rate.

Super.

Certain people get angry when I say the GOP hates women. I'd like to see them explain this.

At 5 months into it, I have to wonder why a woman didn't decide to have the procedure performed earlier. Its been a while since i had a niece or nephew born, but by that time wouldn't the "joys" of motherhood start including not able to sleep on your belly, random kicking, morning sickness, and drastic change in your dietary needs? Add some cases where this might induce a temporary form of diabetes that only happens during pregnancy, why wait this long to have the operation?

saint of m:
At 5 months into it, I have to wonder why a woman didn't decide to have the procedure performed earlier. Its been a while since i had a niece or nephew born, but by that time wouldn't the "joys" of motherhood start including not able to sleep on your belly, random kicking, morning sickness, and drastic change in your dietary needs? Add some cases where this might induce a temporary form of diabetes that only happens during pregnancy, why wait this long to have the operation?

Outside of a few circumstances I can think of, there's very few reasons. Case in point, your diabetes, but also people that just have general chronic pain in the torso area. Like I get why people would be freaking out if this were something like 2 months(since that's about the time you actually figure it out for most people), but this is only like 4 weeks outside of the cutoff date in even the most progressive countries. And it's a Republican-controlled Congress passing it. That should really be more cause for celebration than the disdain and "they hate the women" you're seeing everywhere here.

Sure, I can see people wanting it to still be 6 months, but at about that point anyways, you start having more abortions have complications that end up with the women having them actually being harmed more easily than if they carried to term. I mean, at six months we're talking about most of the rudimentary shapes being ironed out when it comes to fetus'. It's not just a flush and wipe procedure anymore, it's reaching in and pulling it out. If anything, this makes it a bit safer. Less ideal, but more often a simpler procedure and one that's practiced more often by more doctors.

But still, we're talking about a bill that is all for the ability to choose by a political group that has historically opposed it for - what I personally find to be perfectly respectable - reasons. We're either moving forward together, or someone on the Dem's side found the secret stash of naughty cosplay pics.

saint of m:
At 5 months into it, I have to wonder why a woman didn't decide to have the procedure performed earlier. Its been a while since i had a niece or nephew born, but by that time wouldn't the "joys" of motherhood start including not able to sleep on your belly, random kicking, morning sickness, and drastic change in your dietary needs? Add some cases where this might induce a temporary form of diabetes that only happens during pregnancy, why wait this long to have the operation?

I don't post often anymore. But I wanted to suggest a reason. Abortions are expensive.

In my own state of Florida an abortion can cost somewhere between $380-$3800. Last month my wife and I were trying to figure out where to get $80 to replace the cam shaft sensor in our car.

I can't imagine where we would get even the minimum ammount for an abortion.

So there is the answer. Why "wait" for 20+ weeks before getting abortion? Because it couod take more than 4 months to save up the money. And that's if you are lucky enough to be eligible for the cheap version.

DeimosMasque:

saint of m:
At 5 months into it, I have to wonder why a woman didn't decide to have the procedure performed earlier. Its been a while since i had a niece or nephew born, but by that time wouldn't the "joys" of motherhood start including not able to sleep on your belly, random kicking, morning sickness, and drastic change in your dietary needs? Add some cases where this might induce a temporary form of diabetes that only happens during pregnancy, why wait this long to have the operation?

I don't post often anymore. But I wanted to suggest a reason. Abortions are expensive.

In my own state of Florida an abortion can cost somewhere between $380-$3800. Last month my wife and I were trying to figure out where to get $80 to replace the cam shaft sensor in our car.

I can't imagine where we would get even the minimum ammount for an abortion.

So there is the answer. Why "wait" for 20+ weeks before getting abortion? Because it couod take more than 4 months to save up the money. And that's if you are lucky enough to be eligible for the cheap version.

And there are no ways to help reduse that? I know not everything is (my Dad had a dozen or so cancer Surgeries, so I get it), but I would think Planned Parenthood would have methods of helping

saint of m:

DeimosMasque:

saint of m:
At 5 months into it, I have to wonder why a woman didn't decide to have the procedure performed earlier. Its been a while since i had a niece or nephew born, but by that time wouldn't the "joys" of motherhood start including not able to sleep on your belly, random kicking, morning sickness, and drastic change in your dietary needs? Add some cases where this might induce a temporary form of diabetes that only happens during pregnancy, why wait this long to have the operation?

I don't post often anymore. But I wanted to suggest a reason. Abortions are expensive.

In my own state of Florida an abortion can cost somewhere between $380-$3800. Last month my wife and I were trying to figure out where to get $80 to replace the cam shaft sensor in our car.

I can't imagine where we would get even the minimum ammount for an abortion.

So there is the answer. Why "wait" for 20+ weeks before getting abortion? Because it couod take more than 4 months to save up the money. And that's if you are lucky enough to be eligible for the cheap version.

And there are no ways to help reduse that? I know not everything is (my Dad had a dozen or so cancer Surgeries, so I get it), but I would think Planned Parenthood would have methods of helping

Assuming there's a Planned Patenthood even remotely close to your post code, that's the price with their help.

So, they pass what amounts to a virtue signal abortion bill (particularly so because as Jux's data points out the vast majority happen well before that point), and people start calling it a sign the republicans hate women? Not surprised by the response at this point. Not that most of their stupid laws regarding pregnancy aren't very often contrary to individual sovereignty for women in order to concentrate on it for the fetus, but this, this looks like just fishing for an excuse to complain about the topic that itself is nothing.

Honestly, I would have expected the take to be about how this is literally lip service, nothing more from the party with regard to delivering on anti-abortion policy. It isn't interfering with 99% of abortions, and the few it may effect seem already covered by the clauses concerning threat to life and so on. In the end, it is pretty much nothing changed for anyone in any practical sense, save the politicians can pat their backs and say they supported it come election.

Now the idea of independent sovereignty of the mother compared to the right to life of the fetus is an interesting one. Which does the state have grater responsibility to protect, the right of the mother to full control over her own body, or the right of the fetus to development into life as a human being. Now myself, I side with the right of the mother to have control over her own body as a natural extension of my siding with the right of individual liberties to exert control over themselves and their property. Much like someone breaking into your home and eating your food, an individual shouldn't have to accept that and should be able to defend themselves. That the home in this instance is within the womb doesn't change the concept.

Now the bigger issue is the knowledge that removal will kill the fetus. Well, much like kicking someone out of your home doesn't make you responsible for what happens to them after if they were breaking in anyways, I would say the same applies here. The fact that the fetus is not a child yet and at less than 20 weeks isn't much of anything really does also help the emotional argument I suppose, though since not everyone agrees a fetus is not a child, or where it turns into one, that isn't a very good argument to others.

Just for my own personal curiosity though, I wonder where folks would fall with regard to consistent underlying principles with regard to abortion compared to other issues.

Individual sovereignty versus national sovereignty such as if a woman has the right to abortion of an unwanted pregnancy compared to if a nation has a right to "abort" an unwanted illegal immigrant.

Individual control versus government control such as if a government should not decide for a woman what she can do with her body with regards to pregnancy, but should with regard to medical treatment and enforcement.

So, because the slope is slippery, the GOP is planning to hold hearing over a bill that would ban abortions as early as 5 weeks, aka. a short enough period of time that many women wouldn't even know they were pregnant, and only provides an exception for psysical danger to the mother, not emotional or psychological effects, not any exception in the case of rape or incest.

altnameJag:
So, because the slope is slippery, the GOP is planning to hold hearing over a bill that would ban abortions as early as 5 weeks, aka. a short enough period of time that many women wouldn't even know they were pregnant, and only provides an exception for psysical danger to the mother, not emotional or psychological effects, not any exception in the case of rape or incest.

'Heartbeat protection act' ...fucking really? That's...I don't have flattering words to share.

runic knight:
Now myself, I side with the right of the mother to have control over her own body as a natural extension of my siding with the right of individual liberties to exert control over themselves and their property. Much like someone breaking into your home and eating your food, an individual shouldn't have to accept that and should be able to defend themselves. That the home in this instance is within the womb doesn't change the concept.

Except that it does.

It fundamentally changes the concept to one of medical ethics and bodily autonomy.

The only way you could draw that equivalence is if you consider a person's "ownership" of material property to be the same as "ownership" of their body, which is not legally the case and, if it were the case would lead to some pretty horrifying conclusions. These bodies we have are not flesh suits which we can take on and off at will, they are not property in the sense a house is property, they are the material substance of the person itself, who is permanently and inexorably linked to them. To be the owner of a body is to be the person piloting it, there have been times when it has been legal for other people to own human bodies as property, and people still attempt to do so through various means, but our society recognises the permanent and inexorable nature of the link between a person and their body as something more than the transient link between a person and their property, and it is factually correct to do so.

runic knight:
Now the bigger issue is the knowledge that removal will kill the fetus. Well, much like kicking someone out of your home doesn't make you responsible for what happens to them after if they were breaking in anyways, I would say the same applies here.

Well, except again, the analogy doesn't work. If you kicked your child out of your home, then you would be responsible for what happened to them. Fortunately, again, owning a body isn't analogous to owning a house.

altnameJag:
So, because the slope is slippery, the GOP is planning to hold hearing over a bill that would ban abortions as early as 5 weeks, aka. a short enough period of time that many women wouldn't even know they were pregnant, and only provides an exception for psysical danger to the mother, not emotional or psychological effects, not any exception in the case of rape or incest.

Non-American here.

Did the GOP also propose the bill?
Have they seconded it, and now holds a hearing to merely try to pass it through?

I tried understanding the wording of the bill but I confess that I felt more confused that enlightened as to the real meaning behind the words and their intention.
(They really should include an oppositional or neutral brief for the common folk/laymen, otherwise it becomes rather elitist I think.)

Anyway, I thought the 20 weeks were a bit too late without risking a more severe form of intervention and also comes too close to murdering a child rather then aborting a fetus.
5 weeks is the direct opposite. It's way too short of a time for the woman to detect she is pregnant, not to mention deciding what (if anything) to do about it.

10-12 weeks is a more balanced approach between either notion.

Vendor-Lazarus:

altnameJag:
So, because the slope is slippery, the GOP is planning to hold hearing over a bill that would ban abortions as early as 5 weeks, aka. a short enough period of time that many women wouldn't even know they were pregnant, and only provides an exception for psysical danger to the mother, not emotional or psychological effects, not any exception in the case of rape or incest.

Non-American here.

Did the GOP also propose the bill?
Have they seconded it, and now holds a hearing to merely try to pass it through?

I tried understanding the wording of the bill but I confess that I felt more confused that enlightened as to the real meaning behind the words and their intention.
(They really should include an oppositional or neutral brief for the common folk/laymen, otherwise it becomes rather elitist I think.)

Anyway, I thought the 20 weeks were a bit too late without risking a more severe form of intervention and also comes too close to murdering a child rather then aborting a fetus.
5 weeks is the direct opposite. It's way too short of a time for the woman to detect she is pregnant, not to mention deciding what (if anything) to do about it.

10-12 weeks is a more balanced approach between either notion.

The heart if the problem is that, in U.S. politics, there is a fairly large minority (mostly within the Republican party) that wants to completely outlaw abortion. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade made that impossible. So, they have turned to a war of attrition and are attempting to make getting an abortion so difficult that they have effectively outlawed it without formally doing so directly. The 20-week bill was really just a means to wedge open the door to setting limits so that they could tighten those limits as much as possible to obtain their end goal.

On the state level, it has been happening for decades now. Special restrictions on any facility that performs abortions to make it all but impossible to meet said conditions and thus get that facility closed down. Special hurdles have been put in place to make it so that any woman seeking an abortion has to go to counseling so that the anti-abortion group can use guilt to talk the person out of the procedure. By attacking the support system and infrastructure, they have been very successful in limiting access and still press onward, bit by bit, towards making it so difficult to get an abortion that they've effectively eliminated it.

Sadly, none of these attempts at restriction can be taken in isolation. They are part of a concerted and coordinated effort.

davidmc1158:

Vendor-Lazarus:

altnameJag:
So, because the slope is slippery, the GOP is planning to hold hearing over a bill that would ban abortions as early as 5 weeks, aka. a short enough period of time that many women wouldn't even know they were pregnant, and only provides an exception for psysical danger to the mother, not emotional or psychological effects, not any exception in the case of rape or incest.

Non-American here.

Did the GOP also propose the bill?
Have they seconded it, and now holds a hearing to merely try to pass it through?

I tried understanding the wording of the bill but I confess that I felt more confused that enlightened as to the real meaning behind the words and their intention.
(They really should include an oppositional or neutral brief for the common folk/laymen, otherwise it becomes rather elitist I think.)

Anyway, I thought the 20 weeks were a bit too late without risking a more severe form of intervention and also comes too close to murdering a child rather then aborting a fetus.
5 weeks is the direct opposite. It's way too short of a time for the woman to detect she is pregnant, not to mention deciding what (if anything) to do about it.

10-12 weeks is a more balanced approach between either notion.

The heart if the problem is that, in U.S. politics, there is a fairly large minority (mostly within the Republican party) that wants to completely outlaw abortion. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade made that impossible. So, they have turned to a war of attrition and are attempting to make getting an abortion so difficult that they have effectively outlawed it without formally doing so directly. The 20-week bill was really just a means to wedge open the door to setting limits so that they could tighten those limits as much as possible to obtain their end goal.

On the state level, it has been happening for decades now. Special restrictions on any facility that performs abortions to make it all but impossible to meet said conditions and thus get that facility closed down. Special hurdles have been put in place to make it so that any woman seeking an abortion has to go to counseling so that the anti-abortion group can use guilt to talk the person out of the procedure. By attacking the support system and infrastructure, they have been very successful in limiting access and still press onward, bit by bit, towards making it so difficult to get an abortion that they've effectively eliminated it.

Sadly, none of these attempts at restriction can be taken in isolation. They are part of a concerted and coordinated effort.

Thanks for the elucidation!
If I take this as gospel (pardon the pun), then I think it's a scummy move by the GOP but agree with them that a limit needs to be placed on abortion. Unless special circumstances dictate otherwise.
What I don't agree with is their religiously bound notion that all life is sacred and a gift from a god.
They themselves break that just by living. Even if they only count humans as sacred life, everyone indirectly causes death.
It's the way of how things are.

Though, unless underhanded and illegal actions are taken, isn't this how politics are supposed to work?
Can't the Democrats vote this down and force a stalemate/settle for a compromise somewhere in between?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here