:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Fear mongering over nonexistent horrors has become a staple of the right wing in this country. They're not happy unless they're unhappy.

Your response is confusing. Do you support law that allows for a non-medical cause abortion at 8 1/2 months?

I would consider a fatal defect or still birth to be a medical cause. However we have states that literally allow it be performed for no given cause that late.

Are you willing to condemn the above? That would be refreshing, if so.

To Republicans, it's better to leave a newborn in a dumpster than for a woman to have an abortion.

At least it would have a chance.

FTFY

Are you willing to condemn a law that forces a woman that has a miscarriage to defend herself in court to show that she did not perform an illegal abortion?

Oh no wait, you applaud the laws that will make that happen while asking others to condemn something that never happens.
The law you want me to condemn allows doctors to abort a pregnancy where there is something clearly wrong without having to go trough layers of laws preventing them from acting in the interest of the mother. But you, and the monsters you support, would rather a woman suffers needlessly while lawyers figure out if the procedure is a 'medical emergency' rather than admit that such late term abortion are ONLY ever performed in actual medical emergencies by focusing on non-existent cases. And in the meantime you ignore all the actual horror scenarios unfolding as 'extreme cases that don't happen much'

So yeah, you support making 8 1/2 month abortions legal for any cause, universally. Got it.

Well, in the US, that way of thinking has thankfully taken a big hit.

So yeah, you support making women who have had a miscarriage to prove in a court they didn’t have an abortion. Got it.

So, have you found the case where that actually happened yet?

No need. That whole line of questioning is just a diversion someone invented in order to avoid giving a direct answer to an easy yes or no question.

Yes, I'd rather support a law that allows for a hypothetical bad scenario that has never been show to happen at all than support a law that allows actual horror scenarios like 10 year olds forced to carry rapist's childs to term, mothers with dead children forced to carry those to term, forcing women with miscarriages to hide them lest they end up in jail and all the other misery that is actually happening.

You clearly prefer it the other way around. After all, who cares what happens to women, in your worldview they are clearly lesser beings.

The above is not a legitimate debate tactic; the fallback and comforting, ad hom.

Completely incorrect. Likely predicated upon falsehoods and distortions promoted by others.

You and this guy have a lot in common:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You mean like claiming women have late third term abortions on a whim?

You just can't let it go, can you. :rolleyes:

Complete fantasy. I have been on record for many months as supporting Roe. It is only recently that I have determined that since clearly no compromise is possible with pro-choice groups, I will adopt a much more detached stance on the matter and let these chips fall where they may. And promote the obvious failure of the Dem approach, politically.

You have no place talking about falsehoods and distortions when you keep repeating the falsehood that no restrictions on abortions means something it doesn't mean.

How about the other direction, do you believe a state should be able to ban an abortion for a 10 yr old? 11? 12? At what age should a state be able to ban an abortion?


You support Roe or you don't give a ****** Which is it?

This was already covered extensively. I made clear, for months, that I do NOT support banning abortion for victims of rape and incest as I see no tangible benefit for such. However, that wasn't good enough...the argument was then that my concept of protecting life must be false. Even though I was not against Roe and did not expect it to be overturned.

So, to hell with it. Let them carry their rape babies if the state decides such.

That's crazy talk. Next you'll be saying women should be able to vote, refuse sex to their husbands and own property.

It helps distract from the new reality of women dying and raped children being forced to give birth.The
Really I don't understand why anyone engages with this puerile trolling.

A chance at what? What Republican policies are there that would help this theoretical baby, the life of which Republicans claim they value?

Please be specific.

How it started:
How it's going:

From feigned indignation to shouting the quiet part through a bullhorn in less than a half hour.

Gee, you mean he is disingenuous? Golly.

"I was proven wrong, as a result my feelings got hurt. Advocating that random people are put through pain and misery will make me feel better."

Much being said, and not said over whether people would, or would not support a law prohibiting extremely late-term 'abortions'.

So let us take a not-so-hypothetical scenario:

A (heavily republican) state writes and passes a law banning late term abortions. Celebrations are had, and comments about 'saving the lives of babies'.

1: Three weeks after the bill is passed into law, a young woman, heavily pregnant, rushes into a hospital ER. She proclaims something is wrong with her baby. It stopped moving.

Doctors rush her in for an immediate examination, and it turns out her baby had, indeed, died. The doctors perform a C-Cection to remove the baby, But there is an inquiry, and a criminal trial.

Turns out the young would be mother had injured herself, the cut was infected, and she took some penicillin. The baby was allergic, and died. She is accused of murdering the child, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The hospital and the doctor are investigated, but are cleared of any wrong doing. This causes ripples across the medical community.

2: Four months later A woman who is 7 months pregnant is advised by her OBG-YN to go to a hospital when she feels something is wrong. It is her third, and something feels 'off'.

Her baby is in distress, and doctors induce birth. The baby lives, but the woman and the doctor are charged with attempted homicide. They both are eventually cleared, but not without very expensive lawyers.

Hospitals send out new directives in such cases.

3: A Young couple, poor, and thus has limited medical insurance are sent to an ER due to an 'abnormality' in the Fetus that the woman is carrying. An ultra sound is done, and it is found that the baby as 'mermaid syndrome', and will not survive outside the womb. A late term abortion is needed. The couple is distraught, but it it takes hours, if not days while the hospital tries to determine what it will do. It is decided that the couple must travel to another state for the procedure.

4: Another couple is pregnant with their second child when they present at an ER. They were sent by their doctor to go immediately. They find out that the baby has died. Something went wrong, and now the mother is at severe risk as she missed the signs. Doctors make her comfortable, but are ordered to not do anything else, due to risk to the hospital. the woman dies due to septic shock.


"But Shalamar! You're being a hyperbolic silly stupid lib! ell oh ell!'

No. I am not. Hospitals in Texas are already starting to limit what their doctors do TODAY when it comes to emergency procedures which puts the lives of fetus' and their mothers at grave risk.

Anyone in the medical community will say that while the above scenarios are very rare, they do happen. And sometimes, fetus' just die. Wrong blood type. An allergy, chromosomal mutation.

A restrictive law on late term 'abortions' will kill women. Not many, but it will. Because it will be abused. Women will go to prison for no fault of their own. Or will simply die.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07...abortion-laws/

To add to this.

Miscarriages happen. A lot.
And they are very traumatic to the women involved.

An abortion pill induces a miscarriage and in the new freedom states are the only way for a woman that does not want a child to at least somewhat safely abort the pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable.

Yet these self same states are seeking to make this illegal too.

So soon every woman that suffers a miscarriage has a chance to end up in jail if she cannot prove the miscarriage was natural. Something that does happen in other misogynistic countries already.
And often to poor women of course, as they cannot afford the healthcare and lawyers.

Another cool feature of theocratic control of government being introduced into the US.

Thank you for giving actual examples of how these draconian laws are affecting real women in real life and not just making a hyperbolic claim that you cannot provide evidence for because it does not exist.

That's the issue I have with such laws. They will be abused, and people will suffer, even those that the law is not intended to affect.

"Ever since they passed the law banning late term abortions, I can't get medical care for my high risk pregnancy!"

They see themselves are the heroes, 'protecting the rights of the voiceless' while uncaring that women suffer because of it.

Here's another real life example of how these dangerous laws kill women. This case happened in Ireland where they also had a ban on abortions. Unlike here, Ireland learned from this and legalized the medical procedure:

And yet another example of how these backward laws will kill women:
Prudente was airlifted to Spain where she received the medically necessary abortion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ion-roe-v-wade

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...er-miscarriage

Three stories about the new crime of miscarriage.
Protecting the innocent at it's finest.


But hey, there is a need to prevent those non existent 8,5 month abortions, so it's all just collateral damage. And it gives Lib tears, so even better for some.

This is just some of the worst logic ever, and I see it mentioned quite a bit.

"This baby might not grow up to be a rock star, so it's better to just kill it. If you think otherwise, tell me exactly how you are going pay for all of the expenses."

Outstanding.

A quote from the highlighted link above:

And/or an activist anti-choice DA like Todd Rokita in Indiana who accused Dr. Bernard of failing to report an abortion she performed when the DHS had a report of her doing so.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...st-l-rcna38493

The report was filed two days after the procedure so it was readily available for Rokita to confirm before he made his false statements.

No, the logic is "I do not think I will be able to care for a child in any way shape or form. Or it will grow up in an abusive environment. Or if I have this child zI will have to live paycheck to paycheck attempting to provide food while never seeing it as I'll never be there, I should wait until I have a good job. Or many other valid reasons a woman that accidentaly gets pregnant might have.

But the current GoP laws care for the child until it is born. If afterwards it's life is pure hell, well, that's all up to god.

That's some of the worst mischaracterization of what someone said ever.

I think I might have posted this before. My wife has has 3 miscarriages (and thankfully 7 births) and they were the worst days of her life. To think she would even be questioned about this is barbaric.

My condolences.

If it’s a troll baby…

The only thing a troll believes in is posting inflammatory, insincere and digressive messages with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

A sum-up that should be unnecessary: opponents of laws that restrict late-term abortions are not in favor of such abortions happening without medical cause. They are against the remedy of a statutory mandate over other ways that already seem to successfully stop this from happening.

A consistent "small government" republican would embrace a situation where a potential problem is solved without regulation.