Texas bans abortion.

[Warp12]

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.

Uhh...ok? Because someone saying "I don't care" is a really sold response to a statistical numbers. LMAO. Especially after they just quoted percentages. What ammo did I run out of?

Do you support unconditional third trimester abortions? That is the current discussion. Most states appear to already have such restrictions that make exceptions for medical concerns.

If you don't take issue with it, then where is the debate? If you do take issue with it, then I'll put you down as supporting them unconditionally.

 

[acbytesla]

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

That is about 12 percent of all pregnancies.

Seems to me your making a problem out of something that isn't.

 

[Warbler]

deleted. I didn't realize that what I did was a violation of the rules. Sorry.

 

[Warp12]

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

That is about 12 percent of all pregnancies.

Seems to me your making a problem out of something that isn't.

Well, I am sure you feel that way. You are an advocate for abortion partially due to its benefits relating to population control, after all. You have mentioned this numerous times in this thread.

 

[Suddenly]

If there are 100 women who get very late abortions because they will die or they don't want to carry a fetus with no chance of living to term, well... if five of them were lying and just getting rid of a healthy fetus I'm perfectly fine with those percentages.

Forcing a woman to at mortal risk deliver a baby that will immediately die or is already dead is way more depraved than anything the most rabid bad suit wearing abortion clinic bomber could dream up. But here we are.

Being against abortion is immoral and depraved. Even moreso when the same people obstruct sex education, access to contraception, and social programs to help the struggling mothers they forced to give birth.

 

[Warp12]

Being against abortion is immoral and depraved. Even moreso when the same people obstruct sex education, access to contraception, and social programs to help the struggling mothers they forced to give birth.

Is being against unconditional third trimester abortions "immoral and depraved", in your view?

 

[acbytesla]

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

Third trimester abortions make up less than 1 percent of all abortions. Virtually all of which are done for health reasons. Should we sacrifice the health of the mother in that situation?
Roe v Wade allows for those.

 

[acbytesla]

JoeMorgue fyi, I have put you on ignore. I tired of your rudeness and the disrespectful mocking tone of your posts.

You must be devastated Joe.

 

[abaddon]

As noted and shown by consistent polling, the folks that say there should be no limit on abortions do not have the popular consensus, nor science, and only seem to care about choice and privacy in one thing.

Nobody is claiming that as a matter of routine, third trimester abortion is OK. You merely throw that in as an emotive nonsense. Stop doing that.

But...

Popular consensus in the US and the rest of the developed world is.
First trimester sure don't care
Second, I care more it should be for a good reason and maybe with some limits.

More or less. Pro choice folks would not much argue except where tose bondaries may lie.

Third, that ***** creepy as hell, no except for the life and health of the mother.

And now you are wrong. The religious and "pro life" people argue that in such cases, both mother and baby should die. Do you really believe that such has not happened because the religious have passed laws to that effect? It has. Pretending it has not is dishonest. No the religious law says "we do not care about the health of the mother, both can die". That is what actually happens.

The reasonable people think a fetus becomes a human sometime between conception and birth and thus it is worth considering it have some competing rights with the mother at some point.

Far enough to allow both to die? That is what the pro-lifers want and have received.

This makes sense to the vast majority of humanity.

Does it? Big claim, no evidence.

Only 10% of the country thinks its never ok to abort and 20% think it should be legal up until birth.

You made that up out of whole cloth.

I know blah blah blah don't make it illegal because it almost never happens.

We already know it only occurs in extremis that third trimester abortion occurs. You would have it that both mother and child should both die in such a circumstance.

That extremist attitude is how you will loose the 70% of the country that would call themselves be on your side but since there's a bunch of you that would be fine with abortion for any reason up till birth and that doctors and hospitals should be required to do so if asked.

Another sack of straw.

I know, I'm the one in some fantasy about souls or something..... Really, the extremists are in a fantasy about what their opposition actually is and what arguments they are actually making. I am constantly reminded of the studies showing that the right understands the left better than the left understands the right.

No. You are in a fantasy that pro-choice people are mandating that abortion is OK right up to the moment of birth. And you are flat out wrong. And you are unable to figure out why you are wrong.

As Sun Tzu said, know your self and your enemy and you will win every battle, know yourself and not your enemy and you lose half, don't know either and you will never win.

A warlord like Sun Tzu is somehow relevant to the abortion issue? What an idiotic idea?

I really can't understand how progressives ever win.

Because perhaps other countries are not as riddled as the USA with religious nonsense.

They clearly have no idea how the opposition thinks and either don't know or don't care about how the vast middle of potential allies think, and barely seem to know how they think.

In the USA, they seem to not think at all. Maybe that has something to do with it?

If you want your way, you are going to have to convince a lot of people who think third trimester abortion is at best a necessary evil and potentially murder that it should be legal. Not just your straw Christians think that because of their imaginary soul.

Or we could just agree with you that women are chattel and their deaths do not matter. After all, one can just buy a fresh one, right?

 

[Warp12]

Third trimester abortions make up less than 1 percent of all abortions. Virtually all of which are done for health reasons. Should we sacrifice the health of the mother in that situation?
Roe v Wade allows for those.

I don't see anyone in the current discussion suggesting that we sacrifice the health of the mother, in such cases.

 

[Suddenly]

Uhh...ok? Because someone saying "I don't care" is a really sold response to a statistical numbers. LMAO. Especially after they just quoted percentages. What ammo did I run out of?

A perfectly good response to a totally irrelevant number. The only number that would matter is that 100% of the people that want an abortion can get one.

Do you support unconditional third trimester abortions? That is the current discussion. Most states appear to already have such restrictions that make exceptions for medical concerns.

The ones that don't are the reasons why restrictions are a bad idea. I'm not impressed with the fact that a woman dies in Texas from a forced delivery she could have ended in some other state. That isn't how it works.

If you don't take issue with it, then where is the debate? If you do take issue with it, then I'll put you down as supporting them unconditionally.

I like how "shouldn't be criminalized" has become "support them unconditionally." As if I'm going to force a provider to perform an abortion they think violates medical ethics or something.

This is what I mean. It is all twisted language meant to appeal to the assumption that ending a pregnancy is inherently evil and corrupt. Appealing to hypotheticals that never happen and would be illegal as it is to create an atmosphere of emotionally charged disgust to then twist into laws that cause untold suffering for the living.

That's the one trick this pony has, and it's pretty transparent.

 

[Warp12]

A perfectly good response to a totally irrelevant number. The only number that would matter is that 100% of the people that want an abortion can get one.

If someone posts percentages, relating to the length of term at abortion, is it not appropriate to then present the total number of abortions performed, in response? This is the only way to an accurate scale of the real numbers.

Your argument makes no sense.

 

[smartcooky]

JoeMorgue fyi, I have put you on ignore. I tired of your rudeness and the disrespectful mocking tone of your posts.

1. I for one thoroughly enjoy Joe Morgue's posts. I find it refreshing that a poster is willing to post no-BS frank and brutal assessments of what other people post, and I have been on the end of that brutality on occasion.

2. I am 100% certain that Joe will not lose a moment's sleep over being put on ignore... he will still call you out when you post BS, and everyone else will still see it

3. It is a violation of the Forum MA to post that you have put a poster on ignore.

 

[Suddenly]

Is being against unconditional third trimester abortions "immoral and depraved", in your view?

Yes. Because conditions will always be used in some states in bad faith to the point where they aren't morally justifiable.

Go read an honest account of the horror of undergoing a late term abortion. From the news of a fatal defect that means that expected baby is not going to happen, to the onerous process of finding someone that will do these despite the danger of someone you enable killing them or their family, and having the doomed fetus extracted, and the absolute shame involved because people like you have convinced large segments of the population, even those who aren't against all abortion, that what she did was evil.

I mean, assuming she can afford all of this, which she probably can't because of federal restrictions on medical funding so for every person that needs this care there are many more that suffer because of regulations and enabling whackjobs to obstruct medical care.

 

[Stacyhs]

Any ethical physician would not perform a third trimester abortion unless there was a medical or extremely significant reason to do so. However, there have been a couple of cases of a doctor doing so, for example Dr. Kermit Gosnell. He did it for the money, pure and simple. He was a monster who also killed 7 babies delivered alive:

Gosnell catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women, and made millions of dollars over 30 years performing illegal and late-term abortions in squalid and barbaric conditions, prosecutors said.

"There were bags, and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building," said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. "There were jars lining shelves with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

According to the grand jury report, Gosnell catered to women who were too late in their pregnancies to get legal abortions elsewhere. Most doctors refuse to perform abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy because of the risks involved.

Abortions after the 24th week are illegal. However, Gosnell allegedly aborted and killed babies in the sixth and seventh months of pregnancy and charged more for bigger babies.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/phila...ing-babies-scissors-charged/story?id=12649868

He was convicted of the murder of 7 babies and of manslaughter in the death of a woman during her abortion. He was a butcher. But, as previously stated, no ethical doctor would perform third trimester abortions without an absolute necessity to do so.

 

[Suddenly]

If someone posts percentages, relating to the length of term at abortion, is it not appropriate to then present the total number of abortions performed, in response? This is the only way to an accurate scale of the real numbers.

Your argument makes no sense.

It does, because the raw numbers are totally meaningless to the debate.

Go find some verifiable accounts of these mythical 38 week abortions of a healthy fetus and then maybe you will have a number at least considering.

So when you find one you can compare it to the 800,000 number and get an idea of why worrying about this is unreasonable and warrants a presumption of bad faith.

 

[Stacyhs]

For those of you who are interested in the development of the fetus:

Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), available evidence indicates that a fetus cannot perceive pain until the “third trimester at the earliest, well past the period between 20 weeks and viability.”

A 2005 comprehensive literature review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco concluded that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”

A fetus cannot experience pain until after viability and lacks the brain structures and connections necessary to process pain. A fetus develops cortical function (“required for conscious perception of pain”) at 29–30 weeks, during the third trimester.

https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/later-abortion

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see anyone in the current discussion suggesting that we sacrifice the health of the mother, in such cases.

And yet post after post you go on about late term abortions.

Using the 800,000 number for abortions and 1 percent of which are third trimester abortions we are talking about 8,000 annual third trimester abortions.

So how exactly do you propose the State should change and enforce the law to deal with those?

 

[Warp12]

Is being against unconditional third trimester abortions "immoral and depraved", in your view?

Yes.

Well, that is a relatively extreme position, imo. You are in the vast minority.

Only 34% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases in the second trimester, however, and 19% say it should be legal during the third, including 52% and 28% of Democrats, respectively, and 18% and 8% of Republicans.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...t-not-later-in-the-pregnancy/?sh=6e3fbb695074

 

[Warp12]

And yet post after post you go on about late term abortions.

Using the 800,000 number for abortions and 1 percent of which are third trimester abortions we are talking about 8,000 annual third trimester abortions.

So how exactly do you propose the State should change and enforce the law to deal with those?

In most cases it seems, they don't need to make a change. They have restrictions, but allow for them in health/life related cases.