Texas bans abortion.

[Warp12]

I said yes for crying out loud. Did I make your job of cramming me in to some box too difficult by going on to explain why I'm in favor of no restrictions and telling you what compromises I'm OK with?

They are your words, not mine. If you really supported third trimester abortions unconditionally, you wouldn't have such caveats and concessions listed.

But fine. Under your vision of law, yes, it should be perfectly fine for someone to have a 38-week abortion because they decided they don't want to birth the father's child or that they really wanted a boy instead of a girl.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Laws against murder already exist. It's not the same as creating a law that specifically makes exceptions for the cases that are already happening, essentially framing the events and setting up gates in between that aren't expected to actually block anyone because no one's trying to get through. Mere grandstanding.

 

[ahhell]

If those same late-term abortions already only happen in the cases that those advocating banning are willing to exclude from the ban, why bother making the ban at all?

Mostly people are saying they happen very rarely, I don't know the we actually have data on how often. I think it would be a good idea to have a legal regime that reflects both reality and what the majority of people want. That way when the 10% that think it should be totally legal have their protests, we can all just roll our eyes and move on instead of spending the last 40 years having the same argument every 4 years and when some Supreme dies.

Its essentially advocating for a legal regime for abortion that is basically the same as every other western nation.

 

[Warp12]

Laws against murder already exist. It's not the same as creating a law that specifically makes exceptions for the cases that are already happening, essentially framing the events and setting up gates in between that aren't expected to actually block anyone because no one's trying to get through. Mere grandstanding.

So are you against any limitations on third trimester abortions? All should be acceptable under law, no matter the reason?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know the we actually have data on how often.

We do.

Why is "Oh well I don't know anything about this... but I know I'm right" a well we keep returning to in this discussion?

Maybe like learn some of these facts before you get into an argument and tell everyone else they are wrong?

"Late term" isn't a medically or legally defined term (because it's not an actual meaningful distinction) but about 1.3% of abortions are performed after the 21s week, 7.6% at 20 to 14, and 91.1% before 13 weeks.

Again this is one of those "facts" things that makes discussion easier if everyone agrees on them.

 

[acbytesla]

What do you figure the solution is? Relaxing abortion laws further? Maybe a Pro-Choice march? Where should the main focus really be? Certainly anywhere but responsible behavior, right?

Right back on your fog like nonsensical "responsibility" hobby horse again. That didn't take you long.

Who is talking about relaxing abortion laws further? Seems to me we are arguing that Roe v Wade be enforced.

 

[Warbler]

Nope. Never said that. I suggest you go back and read what I did say.

Yes, you did say that.

So you think your mother owned you at one point? okay.

Did I not just say so?

and then there is this:

yes it is in her body, but it is not part of her. It may have rights, one of them being the right to live. That is why is may not be her choice alone.

Really? It is LITERALLY part of her.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"First you said my fly is down, then you said the fly flew out the window, then you said you saw the plane fly."

Yes when you use words in different context they change. Stop trying to "gotcha" people with it.

 

[Warbler]

You were promoting biblical principals at some time. So are you disputing whether it was the father that had the ownership rights, per the Bible? And that he didn't cease to own her at birth, but rather that he owned under he sold to a willing buyer? What exactly is your point here?

I don't think I was arguing any of that in this thread. And I don't think a father owns his daughter, nor do I think he can sell his daughter.

 

[Suddenly]

They are your words, not mine. If you really supported third trimester abortions unconditionally, you wouldn't have such caveats and concessions listed.

But fine. Under your vision of law, yes, it should be perfectly fine for someone to have a 38-week abortion because they decided they don't want to birth the father's child or that they really wanted a boy instead of a girl.

Under yours it would be perfectly fine for some state legislature to make approval for a late abortion practically impossible because there must be legal approval which requires documentation, etc., and force women to die while delivering inviable infants who if they live at all will experience nothing but pain. Why do you want to torture babies and kill mothers?

Nobody is aborting a healthy baby that could be safely delivered slightly premature. It is some weird right wing fantasy that is prosecutable as murder as it is.

 

[Warp12]

"Late term" isn't a medically or legally defined term (because it's not an actual meaningful distinction) but about 1.3% of abortions are performed after the 21s week, 7.6% at 20 to 14, and 91.1% before 13 weeks.

Keeping in mind that there are perhaps a total of 800,000 abortions annually, of course.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Keeping in mind that there are perhaps a total of 800,000 abortions annually, of course.

Okay. I so don't care.

 

[Warp12]

Under yours it would be perfectly fine for some state legislature to make approval for a late abortion practically impossible because there must be legal approval which requires documentation, etc., and force women to die while delivering inviable infants who if they live at all will experience nothing but pain. Why do you want to torture babies and kill mothers?

Lol.

Anything is possible via legislation. Should we not make laws against murder because someone might get wrongly convicted? Or perhaps we shouldn't have murder laws because some states might legislate the death penalty? Your argument makes no sense. We should press for good legislation, not avoid it.

 

[Warp12]

"Late term" isn't a medically or legally defined term (because it's not an actual meaningful distinction) but about 1.3% of abortions are performed after the 21s week, 7.6% at 20 to 14, and 91.1% before 13 weeks.

Keeping in mind that there are perhaps a total of 800,000 abortions annually, of course.

Okay. I so don't care.

Good argument.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They are your words, not mine. If you really supported third trimester abortions unconditionally, you wouldn't have such caveats and concessions listed.

They weren't caveats. I freaking said yes to your question.

Even if my original wording didn't make that clear, how has my subsequent explanation that they are explanations and compromises not registering with you??

 

[Warp12]

Who is talking about relaxing abortion laws further? Seems to me we are arguing that Roe v Wade be enforced.

For starters, the advocates for unconditional third trimester abortions. The discussion going on right now.

 

[Warp12]

They weren't caveats. I freaking said yes to your question.

Even if my original wording didn't make that clear, how has my subsequent explanation that they are explanations and compromises not registering with you??

But fine. Under your vision of law, yes, it should be perfectly fine for someone to have a 38-week abortion because they decided they don't want to birth the father's child or that they really wanted a boy instead of a girl.

I thought we had already moved on.

 

[Suddenly]

Lol.

Anything is possible via legislation. Should we not make laws against murder because someone might get wrongly convicted? Or perhaps we shouldn't have murder laws because some states might legislate the death penalty? Your argument makes no sense. We should press for good legislation, not avoid it.

What are you responding to? The very next sentence I point out that your hypothetical 38 week abortion of a healthy baby would almost certainly lead to a murder, or at least homicide conviction.

Which is why a ban based on such a hypothetical is stupid.

It is stupid to even humor it because conservatives have proven over and over that they will take any exception to the right to abortion and in bad faith twist it in a way to make abortion impossible for as many people as possible. Roe didn't go far enough.

 

[ahhell]

We do.

Why is "Oh well I don't know anything about this... but I know I'm right" a well we keep returning to in this discussion?

Maybe like learn some of these facts before you get into an argument and tell everyone else they are wrong?

"Late term" isn't a medically or legally defined term (because it's not an actual meaningful distinction) but about 1.3% of abortions are performed after the 21s week, 7.6% at 20 to 14, and 91.1% before 13 weeks.

Again this is one of those "facts" things that makes discussion easier if everyone agrees on them.

You could have provided them when I asked previously, you could have provided a link too. Once again you assume the worst of folks that disagree with you.

I have never contested that the anything that could be labeled late term are rare. Among other things, I'm saying that doesn't matter how rare they are.

Again, just imagine a law against something that you do not think should happen. How convincing is the argument, "It doesn't happen that often so it shouldn't be illegal?"

And remember you are not an extremist, its just that most people except for you think that abortions after about 18 weeks should be illegal except for the life and safety of the mother and when the child would have a short miserable life or be unviable but you are not an extremist if you disagree with most people.

 

[Suddenly]

Good argument.

You really run out of ammo fast with people that completely disregard the assumption that abortion is not at all a bad thing.

Because in the end that is all you have, and as more and more people question that unwarranted assumption the arguments for any sort of onerous regulation get sillier and sillier.