Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

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.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

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

that's fine.

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

didn't know that. I will delete it.

 

[acbytesla]

You know what I really really hate about the abortion debate?

It's a distraction from issues that solving would help humanity.

It's a wedge that keeps us from dealing with everything from climate change to greater prosperity for everyone.

 

[Warp12]

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.

That's why, if someone is going to commit a murder, I always tell them to drug the victim first. Then they can tell the judge, "no foul was committed, because they couldn't feel it". It's a solid defense.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Then we're good?

 

[Suddenly]

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:

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.

Forcing live births and killing babies is murder. Go figure.

 

[Suddenly]

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



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

My views on it are not mainstream. I'm not deluded into thinking they are.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Just to bring some truth and facts to this debate...

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

"The CDC does not elaborate on the breakdown by gestational age for abortions occurring past 21 weeks, but it is likely that the vast majority occur soon after 21 weeks rather than in the later in the pregnancy. While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased."​

 

[Warp12]

Then we're good?

I wasn't debating it with you. I was debating it with people who are advocates for no restrictions on these third trimester abortions. So, I don't see where we have a disagreement on that particular issue.

 

[Warp12]

Just to bring some truth and facts to this debate...

So what is your stance? Unrestricted abortions, no matter what the gestational term, as a matter of law?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I thought we had already moved on.

I said absolutely nothing like you claimed I said. Like I said earlier you just want an answer you could twist.

 

[Warp12]

I said absolutely nothing like you claimed I said. Like I said earlier you just want an answer you could twist.

We will have to disagree on that. I'm moving on.

 

[acbytesla]

I wasn't debating it with you. I was debating it with people who are advocates for no restrictions on these third trimester abortions. So, I don't see where we have a disagreement on that particular issue.

No restrictions is statistically insignificant from Roe v Wade as third trimester are almost never done for anything but for health reasons. From a practical reality position there is no difference.

I for one support no restrictions up until birth as I believe women should have full autonomy over their own body. And an unwanted fetus at any point is infringing on her autonomy.

That said, given the reality that health issues are why virtually all late term abortions take place, it is not not not worh discussing.

 

[smartcooky]

So what is your stance? Unrestricted abortions, no matter what the gestational term, as a matter of law?

I already answered the question in post# 2879, but to repeat

"You could start by sticking with the provisions of Roe v Wade. They are an excellent framework that balances the rights of women to have autonomy over their bodies and the need to protect the viable unborn from unnecessary abortion."

I think you underestimate the reach of Roe v Wade. Pretty much most abortion law in the western world is based, at least in part, on the framework Roe v Wade provides. I know for a fact that some of those arguing before select committees in NZ that have dealt with our abortion laws, have quoted Roe v Wade as part of their arguments. Our laws are very similar (IIRC 20 weeks instead of 24 weeks is the cut-off for the end of the 2nd trimester).

 

[Warp12]

No restrictions is statistically insignificant from Roe v Wade as third trimester are almost never done for anything but for health reasons. From a practical reality position there is no difference.

I for one support no restrictions up until birth as I believe women should have full autonomy over their own body. And an unwanted fetus at any point is infringing on her autonomy.

That said, given the reality that health issues are why virtually all late term abortions take place, it is not not not worh discussing.

Well, you are part of a minority, statistically. At least according to the Forbes article that I linked.

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

 

[Warp12]

I already answered the question in post# 2879, but to repeat

"You could start by sticking with the provisions of Roe v Wade. They are an excellent framework that balances the rights of women to have autonomy over their bodies and the need to protect the viable unborn from unnecessary abortion."

I think you underestimate the reach of Roe v Wade. Pretty much most abortion law in the western world is based, at least in part, on the framework Roe v Wade provides. I know for a fact that some of those arguing before select committees in NZ that have dealt with our abortion laws, have quoted Roe v Wade as part of their arguments. Our laws are very similar (IIRC 20 weeks instead of 24 weeks is the cut-off for the end of the 2nd trimester).

I don't think I underestimate it so much as I am generally not concerned with the abortion laws of other countries. The current debate in the thread, though, centers around a number of people claiming there should be NO restrictions whatsoever regarding term length. That position, then, would seem to be an outlier stance even in many other countries.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, you are part of a minority, statistically. At least according to Forbes article that I linked.

That's ok.

As I said, the difference in my position and Roe v Wade is so small in practice that it's not worth being a distraction from issues that are important. More people are dying daily in Florida from COVID then the number of third term abortions performed for reasons other then health annually. More than ten times as many homeless people die from exposure than post 13 week abortions performed.

 

[Warp12]

That's ok.

As I said, the difference in my position and Roe v Wade is so small in practice that it's not worth being a distraction from issues that are important.

Well, I think a more accurate qualifier would be "issues that you feel are important". Because, even though the number of third term abortions is low, the concept that some people believe there should be no restrictions is quite controversial to many. And not just conservatives.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, I think a more accurate qualifier would be "issues that you feel are important". Because, even though the number of third term abortions is low, the concept that some people believe there should be no restrictions is quite controversial to many. And not just conservatives.

Yes, it is my opinion. But if anyone is really concerned about preserving the living, they would be too.

I imagine people shivering in the dark night after night and then one day dying from it. Must be truly awful.

 

[Warp12]

Yes, it is my opinion. But if anyone is really concerned about preserving the living, they would be too. I imagine people shivering in the dark night after night and then one day dying from it. Must be truly awful.

Obviously you can see the irony of that statement, when presented in a discussion about abortion. But, as you say, it is your opinion.

 

[acbytesla]

Obviously you can see the irony of that statement, when presented in a discussion about abortion. But, as you say, it is your opinion.

I don't find it ironical ar all. A fetus from everything I've read and understand is not a sentient being. I see a great difference between human beings that are living and dying in horrible conditions and a group of cells without comprehension.