Source?


Oh.

Well.

This is awkward.

Let me elaborate more on this bit, since you cut rather important context, namely what "it" actually is. By quoting me but leaving out what I was responding to, you make it seem like I'm saying abortion immediately before birth happens, but that's not what I said. So let's include what I was responding to:

None of your sources actually contradict me on this. And like I said, you can pretend all you want to that Kermit Gosnell doesn't exist, but he does. And he did abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including third trimester, for reasons other than protecting the health of the mother. Now, maybe most abortion providers aren't willing to do that, but I see no reason to think he's the only one who did.

Oh, and as for performing abortions immediately before birth, Gosnell did the equivalent. He induced labor, delivered babies, and then murdered them.

For example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130415...ensmedical.pdf

"Gosnell and his employees performed abortions long after the legal limit. The doctor’s unorthodox methods, especially with late second-trimester and third-trimester pregnancies, virtually mandated the premature delivery of live babies – whose spinal cords he would then routinely slit. These practices persisted for many years without interruption by any regulatory body."

This isn't the norm, and I never claimed it was. But you would be naive to believe Gosnell is the only abortion doctor in the whole country willing to do late elective abortions.

sounds like the law of Roe, if enforced, would have been perfectly adequate in this case.

The funny part is that your highlight is missing the rather important context of what SG saying, namely 3rd trimester abortion at the whim of the mother isn't done.

It isn't her burden to support your claim. Are you now withdrawing it since it was "out of context"?


You're referring to the convicted serial killer as if he were merely an abortion provider acting on the whims of his patients? Is John Wayne Gacy merely a clown who gave people the show they were demanding, too?

Zig, this is ridiculous. You're talking about a serial killer as evidence of 3rd trimester abortions at the whim of the mother. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim?

No. What you said is that third trimester abortions on the whim of the mother are done. Like... today I thought I might dye my hair purple but after a coffee I decided on a third trimester abortion instead.

It doesn't support your claim, unless you are now amending it. No one ever said that late 3rd trimester abortions never happened. They're saying it was out of medical necessity, not on the whim of the mother. Do you have any evidence of that?

I would think that bringing up the one who did the thing to point out how doing the thing is a problem when they are serving a life term for doing the thing might not be as convincing as you think.

I realize it's fashionable these days to argue about just about anything, but I never thought the meaning of that admonition was one of them.

I'm not saying it wasn't. And again, if you trace our exchange back, my point from the beginning was that wanting to legalize very late elective abortions is a fringe position, with little support. But it is a real position some people take.

Except I just showed you documented evidence of cases where it was.

What, you think he was kidnapping women off the streets and forcing abortions on them?

No. His patients wanted abortions. They primarily went to him specifically because he was willing to do very late elective abortions when other providers were not.

Gosnell may be unique in his heartlessness and carelessness (although even that I wouldn't guarantee, given how long he practiced). But I have no reason to believe he's the only abortion provider willing to skirt the law. Had he done his job competently, he never would have been caught. You would be a fool to believe he's the only doctor in the country who performed elective third trimester abortions, and that his patients were the only patients who wanted them.

Source?

Alex Jones.

Not the kidnapping, but yes, the article I linked to mentions at lest one involuntary late term abortion.

You’re making assumptions without evidence. Is that the basis of your entire argument?


ETA: but this is off topic. The claim is that there is a fringe that wants to make elective late-term abortions legal. Nothing Gosnell did had anything to do with making late term abortion legal, any more than Gacy was trying to make rape, torture, and murder legal.

:rolleyes:

Zig: "Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never."


I can read just fine.

Which SCOTUS would then find a way to overturn or cut the legs out from under.

I suspect a Federal abortion ban is more likely, assuming the GOP gets their hands on both Congress and the White House. I suppose it'd be a race to see which one they could get into place first.

SG: "Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done."

Zig: "Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never."

I don't see any link supporting your baby murderer but I looked him up. Wiki says he was a convicted serial killer. Kermit Gosnell


That's your excuse for supposedly not being wrong? Oh brother.:rolleyes:

Gossnell was convicted of multiple murders. That should be proof enough that what he did was not a standard medical procedure. Where is your actual evidence (not just your speculation) that third-trimester abortions are performed in any except the most extreme circumstances?

ETA: For reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/healt...ner/index.html

"Why does your argument only work is you're not actually making an honest argument?"

I never said it was standard. I specifically said it was rare. But rare isn't non-existent.

And again, do you think his patients are the only people in the country who want elective third-term abortions? That stretches credulity. He made a lot of money precisely because there is, in fact, a demand for that. A small fraction of the total demand for abortions, to be sure, but I said from the start it was rare.

And Gosnell isn't alone. There are almost certainly other doctors in other cities who will also perform elective third trimester abortions, but more carefully. And why wouldn't there be? There's a lot of money to be made off of demand that other people don't want to meet. A doctor who performs elective third trimester abortions competently is never going to get in trouble with authorities, even if it's not legal. Gosnell only ever was because he didn't perform them competently.

Yes. And also an abortionist. Did you think these things were mutually exclusive? :confused:

You have yet to show that I'm wrong.

The argument about late versus early abortions reminds me a bit of the old story about George Bernard Shaw. Arguing that someone would do anything for money, he got a woman to say she might sell herself for a million pounds. He then asked if she'd do it for ten shillings. She replied indignantly something to the effect of "what do you think I am, a prostitute?" To which he replied that that was already known, and the issue now was only the price.

It is undoubtedly true that, just as there's likely a great difference between a million pound prostitute and a ten shilling one, there is also a great difference between an early abortion and a late one, and no doubt one can raise many issues, moral, medical, and practical about it. But the basic question of who owns the decision has been made regardless. Early or late, wise or unwise, sinful or not sinful, once the decision is made that the government owns a woman's reproductive choice, the rest of the argument is not about rights, but about what the government is willing to concede.

Who cares? What's your point?

Again, you are playing games with what "it" is. "It" doesn't refer to the same thing in these two sentences. The "it" that I never claimed was done was abortions immediately before birth. The "it" that I claimed was done was elective abortions in the third trimester. These two "its" are not the same thing, and your quotes from me are not contradictory claims because those are not the same.

And no, you cannot read just fine. Or if you can, then that means you are deliberately lying. Which... OK, maybe you can read just fine.

Evidently the people who object to me saying that.

It's an example of a restriction on abortion that most people, including most people who want abortion to be legal, are in favor of.

Because it's a red herring that happens about as often as you making an honest argument, that is rare enough to not actually have to worry about.

You know what's missing from the Gosnell case regarding your usage that it proves late term abortions are performed solely at the will of the mother? Evidence that any of the abortions he performed were solely at the will of the mother. Like...we know that a 15 yr old testified that he performed an abortion on her against her will, but we do not know if a single late term abortion he performed had no medical reason to be done.

So, if you could actually provide that, you could use this to prove your point. Failing that, you still haven't provided anything but your own say so that this happens.

Rarity may matter in terms of what's worth doing about a problem, but rarity doesn't make a problem not a problem. Serial killers are rare. But we still worry about them. The fact that YOU feel no concern doesn't mean other people's concerns are unjustified. That isn't how any of this works. You didn't dismiss the alleged 10 year old pregnant girl needing an abortion because that's rare, did you?

Re: making it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion...
They wouldn't be "criminalizing what happens in another state". They would criminalize the aspects that occur in the person's home state. After all a person won't just magically appear in another state and decide "oh, I somehow teleported to NY/California. While I'm here I might as well have this abortion I need". They will plan their trip, possibly arrange transportation, etc. And it is that aspect that will be criminalized.

The only reason why the supreme court MIGHT try to stop such a law is not because "the constitution says it", but because they might realize "rich people will want to travel for abortions and we only want to hurt poor people".

A decade or 2 ago, if someone would have said "the republican party will become a puppet of the Russians", people would have thought you were crazy. Yet the republicans not only received Russian help in the 2016 election, Stubby McBonespurs also decided to give them secret information, and took Putin's assurances over those of American intelligence agencies.

If someone would have suggested that a supreme court nominee would have credible sexual assault allegations against them and still be welcomed on the bench people thought you were nuts. But Drunky McRapeface is a justice, deciding on cases that involve women's rights.

If someone said that Roe V. Wade would be overturned people wouldn't have believed you. (After all, Roe v. Wade was originally decided in part by republican-appointed judges, and it was reaffirmed.) But here we are, with women now without control over their own bodies. (And the decision was made in part by referring to someone who has been dead for 2 centuries, but who once prosecuted witches)

If someone said "the republicans will take billions from the military to build a useless border wall" you would have thought "that's dumb... republicans love the military".

If someone would have said that an ex-president would try to stage a violent coup to retain power, and that the majority of the republican party would continue to embrace him, people would have called you paranoid. But Trump continues to enjoy widespread support, and most republicans rejected a call to impeach him.

MTG (Jewish space lasers and all) continues to have more support in the republican party than Liz Cheney (who strongly supported Trump's agenda for years but dared to think "we shouldn't have a violent coup".)

I think we are well past the point where we can dismiss the worst-possible scenarios as "paranoia". The republicans have shown time and time again that if you expect the worst, well, the republicans have already beat you to it.

As long as they keep telling us "We're being dramatic" they can keep making things worse and worse and, in their heads, be right.

Also as shown by his example, already illegal.

States cannot restrict inter-state travel. That's not a close call. And Kavanaugh, whom you badmouth, even made that explicit in his Dobbs concurrence.

No. They WILL stop any such law because allowing it basically destroys inter-state travel, and opens the door to states trying to regulate what goes on in other states across basically all areas of law, not just abortion.

Uh... people who think that are still crazy.

"Credible".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89896f40fe.jpg

I didn't expect it to happen just because of cultural momentum, but legally speaking it's really not much of a shock. The original decision wasn't really very well founded, legally speaking. Hell, even RBG knew that. It was always revered for its policy effect, not its reasoning.

And they would be right, since that's not what happened.

You really don't know how to persuade someone who doesn't already agree with you.

Since when has rules stopped Republicans?

Or is this just another thing that will never happened until it happens and then "oops well know it's too late to do anything about."

Quite often. On a pretty regular basis. As they also stop Democrats.

The sky has not fallen. Doom is not upon us.

"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."

First of all, what on Earth makes you think they consider the consequences of striking down law? Reversing Roe basically destroys bodily autonomy which opens the door to all sorts of other personal and privacy rights. They clearly have not cared about consequences this session, why would they do it in the future?

Second, isn't the whole deal that judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench? If they are going to be consistent (HA!), shouldn't they be leaving that to the legislatures?

Third, and completely honest questions here, who is going to hold SCOTUS to account if they fail to stop such a law? For that matter, who is going to hold anyone to account if such a law is pushed through? I genuinely want to know who you think would be able to stop this if no one is held accountable.

not for you.

Because Pence was too scared to follow Trump's orders. The one time his cowardice worked in the US's favor.

Could you maybe wait more than 3 posts before doing exactly what people are pointing out you are doing?