International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856641)
I will answer your silly question

I am against such a law. Because the amount of women carrying a child to 8 1/2 month and then deciding to abort the pregnancy because they feel like it is exactly zero, whereas such a law would force a woman with a child that died during pregnancy or where a fatal defect is detected at that late moment would be forced into the agony of waiting until they can 'naturally' see their child dead two weeks later.

But you are firmly rooted in the myth of 'abortions as casual child control' and have shown little to no empathy for others in your posts, so I'm sure you will twist this into 'see, liberals want to murder children' regardless of actual facts.

I just am happy to live in a country where religion has lost it's grip on politics and where women are considered full citizens with the right to decided on something as traumatic as an abortion themselves. And guess what, your dark fantasies of lines of women near childbirth casually going for abortions just does not happen.

: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.

Warp12 16th July 2022 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856641)
I will answer your silly question

I am against such a law. Because the amount of women carrying a child to 8 1/2 month and then deciding to abort the pregnancy because they feel like it is exactly zero, whereas such a law would force a woman with a child that died during pregnancy or where a fatal defect is detected at that late moment would be forced into the agony of waiting until they can 'naturally' see their child dead two weeks later.


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.

thaiboxerken 16th July 2022 12:24 AM

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

Warp12 16th July 2022 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 13856646)
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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856645)
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 but it's never actually done because that's called a live birth via induced or C-section.

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

FTFY

Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856645)
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.

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'

Warp12 16th July 2022 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856652)
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.

lionking 16th July 2022 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856654)
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.

Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856654)
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, have you found the case where that actually happened yet?

Warp12 16th July 2022 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856657)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856639)
Equivalent:

"Yes, we have made it purposely legal to kill people, impale them with ornate spears, and then drag their bodies through the street. If you have a problem with that, show me where it has happened. Otherwise, it is good law and all should support it."

Amazing.


Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 01:23 AM

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.

Warp12 16th July 2022 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856663)
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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856654)
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.


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


Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856664)
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 mean like claiming women have late third term abortions on a whim?

Skeptic Ginger 16th July 2022 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856611)
It is law in VT. Seven states have no limit on pregnancy term for abortion.

Do you condemn law that makes it legal for abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause? Yes or no?

Nobody seems to be willing to directly condemn this. Astoundingly.

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

Warp12 16th July 2022 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856673)
So, you happily cheer on all the laws that make women second class citizens, yet you lack the strength of conviction to admit you consider them that.


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.

Skeptic Ginger 16th July 2022 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856664)
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 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?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856675)
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 support Roe or you don't give a ****** Which is it?

Warp12 16th July 2022 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13856676)
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?


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.

sarge 16th July 2022 02:21 AM

Mod Warning Stop the personalization and the repetitious disruptive formatting.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:sarge

catsmate 16th July 2022 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13856576)
A woman should have the right for an abortion, which should be a private decision between her and her doctor.

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

catsmate 16th July 2022 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13856669)
You just can't let it go, can you. :rolleyes:

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.

johnny karate 16th July 2022 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856648)
At least it would have a chance.

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.

johnny karate 16th July 2022 10:02 AM

How it started:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856663)
You clearly prefer it the other way around. After all, who cares what happens to women, in your worldview they are clearly lesser beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856664)
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.

How it's going:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856677)
So, to hell with it. Let them carry their rape babies if the state decides such.


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

kookbreaker 16th July 2022 10:05 AM

Gee, you mean he is disingenuous? Golly.

Delphic Oracle 16th July 2022 10:15 AM

"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."

Shalamar 16th July 2022 10:33 AM

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/

Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 10:50 AM

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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13856885)
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:

>snip<


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

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.

Shalamar 16th July 2022 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856900)
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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 11:33 AM

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:


Quote:

This woman died because of an abortion ban. Americans fear they could be next.

Dr. Savita Halappanavar, 31, an Indian-born dentist, died in 2012 in Galway, on Ireland’s west coast, after she was denied an abortion by doctors who cited the country’s strict laws, even though there was no chance her baby would survive, according to Ireland’s official report on the case.

Her death shook the foundations of the traditionally conservative and predominantly Roman Catholic country and catalyzed its pro-abortion rights movement. In a 2018 referendum, Irish people voted by a two-thirds majority to legalize the procedure.

The avoidable death of Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant, proved that doctors — not politicians, police and judges — should help decide the best course of action in similar cases, said Dr. Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, the expert who wrote the official report on the case in 2013.
Quote:

In Halappanavar’s case, doctors opted against an abortion because the fetus had a heart rate and anyone carrying out a termination could theoretically have been prosecuted later.

“Because the fetal heart rate was present all the time, the obstetrician did not do a termination. If someone decided that she had done it illegally, she would have gone to jail,” he said.

Arulkumaran, a professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at St. George’s University of London, added that women’s lives are at stake in the U.S.

“I think maternal mortality will go up,” he said. “I think those who are going to be affected are those from lower socioeconomic groups, adolescents, those who don’t have facilities to go for termination.”
Quote:

She was admitted, and on Oct. 23, a doctor told her a miscarriage was “inevitable” because of the rupturing of the membranes that protect the fetus in the womb, even though her baby was a normal size and was registering a heartbeat. The medical team had decided to “monitor the fetal heart in case an accelerated delivery might be possible once the fetal heart stopped,” the official report said. In Halappanavar’s case, an accelerated delivery would likely have meant a medically induced miscarriage.
Quote:

“Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat],” the official report said.

The report added that once their waters have broken, pregnant women are at very high risk of infection, which in some cases can be fatal.

On Oct. 28 at 1:09 a.m., having caught an infection and gone into septic shock, Halappanavar was pronounced dead.


“It was a life-threatening condition, but they took the view of not doing anything because of the legal framework,” Arulkumaran said in the interview.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 11:48 AM

And yet another example of how these backward laws will kill women:
Quote:

U.S. woman left fearing for her life after being denied abortion in Malta

Andrea Prudente suffered the symptoms of a miscarriage while on vacation in Malta, the only European Union country where terminations are banned in all cases.
Quote:

Andrea Prudente, 38, is 16 weeks pregnant but has been told her pregnancy will not survive after she first suffered heavy bleeding while on vacation last week. Women's rights groups say she now faces potential infection and other serious health complications that could ultimately result in her death.

Prudente’s partner, Jay Weeldreyer, 45, told The Associated Press that she is at risk of a life-threatening infection if the fetal tissue isn’t promptly removed.

He added that she experienced heavy bleeding June 12, followed by a premature rupture of the amniotic sac and the separation of the placenta. While the hospital was carefully monitoring her for any sign of infection, he said, the facility cannot perform the surgery to complete the miscarriage.

“The miscarriage is 80% complete,” Weeldreyer said. “Her waters are broken, the placenta has separated, but because of a (fetal) heartbeat,” the fetus cannot be removed, he said.

But because of Malta’s ultrastrict laws, unchanged since the 19th century, any doctor performing an abortion there could face up to four years in prison as long as there is still a fetal heartbeat. Abortion rights activists and doctors have warned that cases like this could become more commonplace in the United States should the Supreme Court overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
Quote:

“I just want to get out of here alive,” Prudente told the Guardian from the hospital Wednesday. “I couldn’t in my wildest dreams have thought up a nightmare like this.”
Prudente was airlifted to Spain where she received the medically necessary abortion.

Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 11:54 AM

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.

Warp12 16th July 2022 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13856854)
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.


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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856932)
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.

A quote from the highlighted link above:

Quote:

“A lot of people don’t realize that pregnant people are already facing criminalization all across the country, including in blue states like California. All it takes is a rogue district attorney.”
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.

Quote:

Rokita said in the interview he was "gathering the evidence" against Bernard, "including looking at her licensure” and whether “she failed to report” the procedure in Indiana because “it’s a crime to not report, to intentionally not report.”
Quote:

Rokita repeated many of his Fox News remarks in a statement through his office on Thursday, when he further questioned whether Bernard had violated health privacy laws by disclosing the case's existence to the newspaper.

In a statement earlier Friday, Bernard’s employer, Indiana University Health, said it had “conducted an investigation with the full cooperation of Dr. Bernard and other IU Health team members” and “found Dr. Bernard in compliance with privacy laws.”

NBC News obtained a Terminated Pregnancy Report from the Indiana Department of Health showing Bernard had reported the procedure within the required timeframe. A Washington Post review of state records also found no issues with Bernard's medical license.
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.

Lukraak_Sisser 16th July 2022 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856938)
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.

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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856938)
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.

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

lionking 16th July 2022 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13856892)
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

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.

Stacyhs 16th July 2022 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13856973)
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.

Regnad Kcin 16th July 2022 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856501)
So, can you tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13856503)
So, can you give me examples of a woman having an abortion at 8 1/2 months without medical cause?

No woman carries a child to within 2-3 weeks of birth and then just decides to get rid of it. Only an idiot believe a woman does that. Which is why you cannot give me an example of this actually happening.

As has been said countless times but which you continue to ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13856505)
So, can you tell me, do you support a woman having a legal right to abortion at 8 1/2 months, without medical cause?

If it’s a troll baby…

arayder 16th July 2022 02:56 PM

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

gnome 16th July 2022 03:00 PM

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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.