The Roe Countdown

[Bob001]

Anti abortion propaganda likes to pretend that perfect little babies are being aborted mere days before they would have been born. Reality is that these are wanted pregnancies that went terribly wrong. A real Christian would treat these woman with sympathy and compassion.

That used to be the Christian position.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, evangelical Christians widely believed the Bible says life begins at birth and supported looser abortion policies. Given current evangelical anti-abortion activism, the reality and significance of this history deserves fuller discussion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-evangelicals-decided-that-life-begins-at-conception_b_2072716

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let me put it this way. We are to believe that late term abortions are so rare that we don't need to concern ourselves with the incredibly small number that will occur if late term abortions are not limited. Well, then, why not limit them? After all, no one is going to get one, so prohibiting them will have no real effect.

Just how late term are you talking about here? No provider is going to abort and kill an infant/fetus in the last 2 months of pregnancy. You deliver the baby and the reasons would be the mother or infant are at grave risk if the pregnancy isn't ended.

Please provide a source for these rare late term 'abortions' you continue to talk about. You can't seem to stop repeating that lie. We need to see just what exactly you are talking about.

The reason not to limit them has to do with the legislature practicing medicine without a license. They don't need to get involved. Issues can be brought up with the respective board that licenses physicians.

Writing such a law only serves to amplify the lie that abortion on demand means women will get abortions with a very viable infant/fetus.


OTOH, if you want such a law because it makes you feel better one can always say abortions when the fetus is viable outside the womb should be limited to pregnancies that carry medical risks to the infant or mother.


On a related note, should it be mandated an aborted fetus that has a chance at life needs aggressive resuscitation, such a law needs the government to cough up the millions of dollars it takes to keep a 1 pound fetus alive outside the womb.

 

[bruto]

Just how late term are you talking about here? No provider is going to abort and kill an infant/fetus in the last 2 months of pregnancy. You deliver the baby and the reasons would be the mother or infant are at grave risk if the pregnancy isn't ended.

Please provide a source for these rare late term 'abortions' you continue to talk about. You can't seem to stop repeating that lie. We need to see just what exactly you are talking about.

The reason not to limit them has to do with the legislature practicing medicine without a license. They don't need to get involved. Issues can be brought up with the respective board that licenses physicians.

Writing such a law only serves to amplify the lie that abortion on demand means women will get abortions with a very viable infant/fetus.

OTOH, if you want such a law because it makes you feel better one can always say abortions when the fetus is viable outside the womb should be limited to pregnancies that carry medical risks to the infant or mother.


On a related note, should it be mandated an aborted fetus that has a chance at life needs aggressive resuscitation, such a law needs the government to cough up the millions of dollars it takes to keep a 1 pound fetus alive outside the womb.

I would go further to say that it says, in effect, that the demand for abortion is inherently impermissible without the supervisory mediation of someone other than the pregnant person. It might still be fine, and maybe it's the right thing to do, but it operatively changes a demand to a petition.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...abortions when the fetus is viable outside the womb should be limited to pregnancies that carry medical risks to the infant or mother...

There is a little irony embedded in that..

 

[Bob001]

Here's the question that nobody seems willing to discuss: On what basis does anyone claim that a fetus has rights that outweigh those of the mother? Even if a fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception or a short time thereafter, how can that "person" compel the mother to risk her health, her financial security and even her life to complete a pregnancy and birth? There is no law that requires anyone to, say, donate a kidney or liver to someone else, even to save their life. There isn't even a law that requires a parent to donate blood to their child. But we are now supposed to make it a crime for a woman to say "I choose not to share my limited bodily resources with this fetal 'person'." What is the legal and moral foundation for that position?

 

[autumn1971]

Here's the question that nobody seems willing to discuss: On what basis does anyone claim that a fetus has rights that outweigh those of the mother? Even if a fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception or a short time thereafter, how can that "person" compel the mother to risk her health, her financial security and even her life to complete a pregnancy and birth? There is no law that requires anyone to, say, donate a kidney or liver to someone else, even to save their life. There isn't even a law that requires a parent to donate blood to their child. But we are now supposed to make it a crime for a woman to say "I choose not to share my limited bodily resources with this fetal 'person'." What is the legal and moral foundation for that position?

It comes from the sacred book of “Right Out of My Ass,” chapter Durrrrr, Verse: numbers scare me!

 

[shemp]

Here's the question that nobody seems willing to discuss: On what basis does anyone claim that a fetus has rights that outweigh those of the mother? Even if a fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception or a short time thereafter, how can that "person" compel the mother to risk her health, her financial security and even her life to complete a pregnancy and birth? There is no law that requires anyone to, say, donate a kidney or liver to someone else, even to save their life. There isn't even a law that requires a parent to donate blood to their child. But we are now supposed to make it a crime for a woman to say "I choose not to share my limited bodily resources with this fetal 'person'." What is the legal and moral foundation for that position?

Texas: "Hold my beer!"

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's the question that nobody seems willing to discuss: On what basis does anyone claim that a fetus has rights that outweigh those of the mother? Even if a fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception or a short time thereafter, how can that "person" compel the mother to risk her health, her financial security and even her life to complete a pregnancy and birth? There is no law that requires anyone to, say, donate a kidney or liver to someone else, even to save their life. There isn't even a law that requires a parent to donate blood to their child. But we are now supposed to make it a crime for a woman to say "I choose not to share my limited bodily resources with this fetal 'person'." What is the legal and moral foundation for that position?

On what basis do we compel parents to take care of their children after birth?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Here's the question that nobody seems willing to discuss: On what basis does anyone claim that a fetus has rights that outweigh those of the mother? Even if a fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception or a short time thereafter, how can that "person" compel the mother to risk her health, her financial security and even her life to complete a pregnancy and birth? There is no law that requires anyone to, say, donate a kidney or liver to someone else, even to save their life. There isn't even a law that requires a parent to donate blood to their child. But we are now supposed to make it a crime for a woman to say "I choose not to share my limited bodily resources with this fetal 'person'." What is the legal and moral foundation for that position?

Something something ignorant sluts should have something else we disagree with.

 

[Dr. Keith]

On what basis do we compel parents to take care of their children after birth?

We don’t. They can put them up for adoption or turn them over to the state. We have safe places for them to do so. Typically fire stations and the such.

 

[theprestige]

We don’t. They can put them up for adoption or turn them over to the state. We have safe places for them to do so. Typically fire stations and the such.

Counterpoint: Court ordered child support. What's the basis for that?

 

[Bob001]

We don’t. They can put them up for adoption or turn them over to the state. We have safe places for them to do so. Typically fire stations and the such.

Interestingly, Justice Barrett contends that the existence of such places eliminates any need for legal abortion.

She noted that all states have such laws enabling people to “terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after abortion.” These measures, she said, appear to remove the “burdens of parenting” emphasized in Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the 1992 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the pivotal ruling.

“Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy,” Barrett said. “Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...arguments-draws-attention-scrutiny/ar-AARqFq9

 

[Bob001]

On what basis do we compel parents to take care of their children after birth?

Counterpoint: Court ordered child support. What's the basis for that?

Do you equate financial support with blood and flesh? Would you require a parent to donate a kidney to her sick child? No other obligation is comparable to requiring a woman to endure pregnancy and birth against her will.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Clarence Thomas says abortion leak has changed Supreme Court

The conservative Thomas,*who joined the court in 1991 and has long called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, described the leak as an unthinkable breach of trust.

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he said while speaking at a conference Friday evening in Dallas.

Interesting choice of analogy for someone who's confirmation was dominated by his misogyny.

But even better:

Thomas also said at one point: “I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad...I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them.”

Thomas also touched in passing on the*protests by liberals at conservative justices’ homes in Maryland and Virginia*that followed the draft opinion’s release. Thomas argued that conservatives have never acted that way.
“You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way. We didn’t throw temper tantrums. I think it is ... incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not to repay tit for tat,” he said.

 

[Shalamar]

Do you equate financial support with blood and flesh? Would you require a parent to donate a kidney to her sick child? No other obligation is comparable to requiring a woman to endure pregnancy and birth against her will.

To conservatives, a woman has no value beyond the ability to produce more conservatives.

That said, they are not pro-Life. They are pro forced birth. After the child is born, they care little was happens to it. See the outcry by the Texas Governor with the federal government providing formula to illegal immigrant babies.

 

[theprestige]

Do you equate financial support with blood and flesh? Would you require a parent to donate a kidney to her sick child? No other obligation is comparable to requiring a woman to endure pregnancy and birth against her will.

And yet we do that, too, if she doesn't jump on it quick enough. What's the basis for that?

 

[tyr_13]

Clarence Thomas says abortion leak has changed Supreme Court


Interesting choice of analogy for someone who's confirmation was dominated by his misogyny.

But even better:

Conservatives bombed clinics, assassinated doctors, shot up Wal-Marts and places of worship, and stormed the Capitol.

This lie by Thomas alone does more to damage the credibility of the court than this leak possibly could, and that's not even counting his own behavior, the unethical nature of which is plainly manifest.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Conservatives bombed clinics, assassinated doctors, shot up Wal-Marts and places of worship, and stormed the Capitol.

This lie by Thomas alone does more to damage the credibility of the court than this leak possibly could, and that's not even counting his own behavior, the unethical nature of which is plainly manifest.

People wrote messages on the sidewalk in front of Susan Collins' home! In water soluble chalk!

She had the police come and investigate the defacement of property.

I wish I was joking.

 

[The Atheist]

That said, they are not pro-Life.

As shown completely by their love of the death penalty, regardless of guilt, mental capacity or age.

 

[Babbylonian]

People wrote messages on the sidewalk in front of Susan Collins' home! In water soluble chalk!

She had the police come and investigate the defacement of property.

I wish I was joking.

And the message requesting her yes vote for a bill protecting abortion rights included the word "please."