Trump wants to ban ABORTION, IVF, MIFEPRISTONE nationwide and JAIL doctors who provide care.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 👆

 

On 2/28/2024 at 12:25 PM, BillsFanNC said:

It's like asking a heroin addict to quit.

 

 

[BillStime]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:52 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Courts ruled it's a state issue.

 

The entire narrative of making it illegal or legal on a federal level is the strawman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you love when your cult leaders upstage you?

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

If he did, it would be struck down by the courts just like last time.  It's a state issue.  

 

We will end up like the EU with different laws for each state. 

8 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Don't you love when your cult leaders upstage you?

 

 

He is pandering to morons.  Similar to the Dems narratives you parrot. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

6 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

See the EU for how abortion is handled on a state by state basis.  Been working there for a long time.  

 

From full bans to a 24 week limit. 

 

The privacy argument went out the window in the COVID lockdown .  

 

Again.  Anything that passes though the congress would be struck down by the courts as they already ruled it's a state issue. 

 

Yes, I’m quite familiar with the EU’s abortion policy. It’s far from optimal for many women, especially the ones geographically stuck in Eastern Europe. You’re not defending the existence of every red state abortion law, are you? You don’t see anything unconstitutional with any of them? Is that the debate path you want to take?

 

The COVID lockdown was (ostensibly) about PUBLIC health. Your refusal to get vaccinated affects everyone else’s health in indoor places. The right to PRIVACY is very much still an inalienable right. How do our abortion decisions affect your personal life?

 

Re-read my court-packing threat. That’s the constitutional crisis we’re facing if 5 or 6 unelected individuals keep pushing their retrograde superstitious nonsense on an entire country of ~340 million. Overturning a federal abortion law that had passed through Congress would be catastrophic for the country’s stability and not just for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts knows this. If your entire argument reduces to Supreme Court fatalism, then you don’t have much of an argument.

[Buffarukus]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:25 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Yes, unequivocally: the prevention of a cluster of cells from developing into a child, when intentionally done against a mother’s consent by another human, should be considered murder. This is my personal answer for what I believe to be true, in principle, as well as what I think should be true legally. But once again…intent can often be hard to prove in a court of law, so I would expect most successful charges to end up less punitive than murder charges…especially when the mother isn’t visibly pregnant.

 

You seem to be looking for a “2+2=4” type of answer on this general topic, Buffarukus, but all that I can offer you is a “wave-particle duality of light” type of answer. Let me try explaining myself this way…

 

1. A scientific perspective: Human life begins at conception.

2. A philosophical perspective: Human life begins at the first sign of brain activity (~8 weeks into pregnancy).

3. An ideal legal perspective: Human life begins whenever the mother says it does, up to the point of birth.

4. A practical/social contract perspective: Human life begins somewhere in the second trimester, with certain agreed-upon exceptions (essentially the Roe v. Wade standard…but preferably the general European standard of up to 15 weeks or with approvals from medical professionals).

5. A private/personal perspective: Life begins at the nebulous gestational limit where I could no longer live with myself for having had the abortion.

 

I believe all the aforementioned to be true, just like I believe light is both a fundamental particle and a wave. How you analytically treat light depends on the particular circumstances in which you make observations of the light. Similarly, how we approach the definition of human life depends on our frame of reference, with each frame of reference valid in its own domain of inquiry.

 

Let’s try working with another analogy: veganism. I believe it is unethical to treat sentient life like food, unless it’s done out of genuine necessity. Does that mean I think meat consumption should be made illegal? NO!! It is my job, as a vegan activist, to persuade you to willingly choose not to eat meat using whatever perspective (animal rights, environmentalism, healthy diet, etc.) I feel is compelling. I fully understand that eating animal meat is inherently different than, say, cannibalism.

 

I feel the same way about abortion. I can persuade other women to reconsider it: maybe I could tell them about their adoption options, mention examples of successful adults who were almost aborted, or even show them graphic images of aborted fetuses. It is NOT my right, however, to use the legal system to physically force nine months of pregnancy and childbirth on another woman…especially when I don’t know her physical, emotional, financial, career, or family circumstances. The question of life is inherently less clear for a fetus than, say, a crawling toddler.

 

I’m sorry if my responses aren’t helpful. If you’re still uncomfortable with dualities, then try considering this more pragmatic point of view: women important to you in your personal life, encountering situations in which they might resort to seeking out dangerous “back-alley abortions.” How do these thought experiments affect your public policy stances? Because as you probably know by now, we women can be extraordinarily willful…

 

I get your points with duality but frame of reference could also be simply how some people rationalize things they dont want to face. It seems to have little to do with evidence from signs of life and more to do with how people want to perceive what they condone. Thats not how most things work and why we have laws to begin with. 

 

Ill explain.

 

Your example of a meat eater. One can say animals have no souls and are objects on this planet primarily for man. A gift to use at will. Unless you know the creator/reason animals exist noone can disprove that thought. The point is not whos right or wrong in that debate but how it becomes much easier to look past moral issues like slaughter and mistreatment when a person maintains that frame of mind. You say you would not want a law in place for meat eaters but i think that you agree with laws and oversight for animals being humanly treated and respected before their lives are sacrificed to create the meat. I personally dont think there are enough of them to protect that cause.

 

Like i said im libertarian on the subject but do so knowing that abortion is now promoted far past the "safe and rare" limits. Thats the frame of reference pro abortion has taken up. A last resort to save women from what you mention is only part of a story. The other side is extremely irresponsable/ vindictive/ and self serving part in humanity. It can capitalize on women in need for monetary reasons as well. At a certain point should we not try to make a distinction between what most see as understandable examples and the others that exist? How do we do that if not for laws/exceptions/ or limits. A do what you want mentality when it comes to human life at its infancy should be given alot more respect then absolute trust and advocation for all procedures all the time as "none of our buisness".

 

Who speaks for those who have no voice? Animal or fetus? How does civilized society promote more of your outlook and use? The way it always has. laws that are hopefully built on logic that exclude those who wish to proceed recklessly. If not, then we should all mind our own buisness on almost everything we are not directly involved in. I have a belief in my right to protect myself and family but there are plenty of laws that govern what limits constitue that human right.

 

The only place we really disagree is in how we perceive the intentions of everyone involved. Thats the duality. the nature that people are capable of dark things is my perception. Its not always the empathetic best case scenario that advocates seem to use all the time as broad reasoning. If my outlook is true, and human history is full of examples showing it, then there has to be some form of check and balance. even more carefully when dealing with the defensless. You see that as a infringment on a god given right and i see it as a way to hold a basic standard if its necessary.

 

Either way it was nice to discuss on this level. It deserves it.

 

 

Edited March 2 by Buffarukus

[daz28]

Trump doesn't want to ban abortion.  he thinks that his great negotiating skills can get a happy medium from people who believe their body is their rights, and that embryos are people.  Only the best deals!!!  iow, he's doing everything possible not to have a stance, because he's afraid of alienating voters from both sides of the issue.  How very presidential of him.  

[BillStime]

Dementia is a horrible thing 
 

 

[BillStime]

This fkn idiot 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

This ain’t going away and the cult is doing themselves no favors

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/29/2024 at 4:14 PM, Buffarukus said:

I get your points with duality but frame of reference could also be simply how some people rationalize things they dont want to face. It seems to have little to do with evidence from signs of life and more to do with how people want to perceive what they condone. Thats not how most things work and why we have laws to begin with. 

 

Ill explain.

 

Your example of a meat eater. One can say animals have no souls and are objects on this planet primarily for man. A gift to use at will. Unless you know the creator/reason animals exist noone can disprove that thought. The point is not whos right or wrong in that debate but how it becomes much easier to look past moral issues like slaughter and mistreatment when a person maintains that frame of mind. You say you would not want a law in place for meat eaters but i think that you agree with laws and oversight for animals being humanly treated and respected before their lives are sacrificed to create the meat. I personally dont think there are enough of them to protect that cause.

 

Like i said im libertarian on the subject but do so knowing that abortion is now promoted far past the "safe and rare" limits. Thats the frame of reference pro abortion has taken up. A last resort to save women from what you mention is only part of a story. The other side is extremely irresponsable/ vindictive/ and self serving part in humanity. It can capitalize on women in need for monetary reasons as well. At a certain point should we not try to make a distinction between what most see as understandable examples and the others that exist? How do we do that if not for laws/exceptions/ or limits. A do what you want mentality when it comes to human life at its infancy should be given alot more respect then absolute trust and advocation for all procedures all the time as "none of our buisness".

 

Who speaks for those who have no voice? Animal or fetus? How does civilized society promote more of your outlook and use? The way it always has. laws that are hopefully built on logic that exclude those who wish to proceed recklessly. If not, then we should all mind our own buisness on almost everything we are not directly involved in. I have a belief in my right to protect myself and family but there are plenty of laws that govern what limits constitue that human right.

 

The only place we really disagree is in how we perceive the intentions of everyone involved. Thats the duality. the nature that people are capable of dark things is my perception. Its not always the empathetic best case scenario that advocates seem to use all the time as broad reasoning. If my outlook is true, and human history is full of examples showing it, then there has to be some form of check and balance. even more carefully when dealing with the defensless. You see that as a infringment on a god given right and i see it as a way to hold a basic standard if its necessary.

 

Either way it was nice to discuss on this level. It deserves it.

 

Oh, I very much doubt we disagree on the “dark” nature of man…though I’ll spare you a boring theoretical rant on Hobbes versus Rousseau!

 

Any disagreement seems to be coming down to a fundamental difference in prioritization. With my public policy support of abortion up to birth, I’m choosing to prioritize the well-being of one group (pregnant women qualifying for a reasonable exception) at the unfortunate expense of not fully protecting another (fetuses that may be terminated for what we may perceive to be disreputable reasons). You can prioritize the latter instead of the former, but remember that the abortion statistics tell us that the latter group happens to be WAY smaller in number than the former. Moreover, I’ve always been personally uncomfortable telling any woman that she MUST endure the challenging experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, no matter the circumstances, when I, myself, have yet to even experience it.

 

Nevertheless…I’m open to compromise. I could accept Trump’s 16-week limit if his list of exceptions was expanded beyond his proffered 3 and if exception-granting powers were shifted from lawyers and judges to doctors and therapists. Bear in mind that this is my own opinion and is not necessarily representative of typical progressives. I’m a centrist on many issues (crime, immigration, guns, political correctness), open to centrist solutions on others (macroeconomics, foreign policy), and am really only an intransigent pinko commie on a couple (health care, environmentalism).

 

Final thought…since I feel like I inadequately explained myself with “dualities” and what not…let’s try a “proof by contradiction,” of sorts. Let’s apply the sentience standard commonly used in the animal rights community. So legally protected life now begins at the point in which pain can be experienced. For human fetuses, this would be some point between 12 and 24 weeks (i.e., the second trimester). Scientists (and philosophers) still debate the specific point at which this becomes a reality, but let’s say it is clearly delineated for the sake of argument.

 

If this is the case, then what legal right do we have to allow ANY abortion exception (including rape) other than the life of the mother? We allow life termination for self-defense, but not for inconvenience! A similar logical fallacy arises in animal rights discussions. If one accepts the sentience standard, then one MUST outlaw free range farming and recreational hunting in addition to the usual: factory farm living conditions, animal entertainment exploitation, and any method of execution deemed torturous.

 

Did this clarify?? So my argument condensed in one sentence: the concept of “legal dualities” is an unavoidable feature accompanying any action of defining and protecting life in a civil society.

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

France (the left) is celebrating legalizing abortion nation wide.   

 

With a 14 to 16 week limit.

 

Here the left frames that as a national ban. To highlight the power of narrative manipulation....

 

https://rollcall.com/2024/03/04/responding-to-us-france-enshrines-abortion-access-in-constitution/

 

 

Edited March 4 by Tommy Callahan

[Tommy Callahan]

 

Welp.  Here is CNN covering it with no details about the new term limit.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/europe/france-abortion-constitution-intl/index.html

Edited March 5 by Tommy Callahan

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

France (the left) is celebrating legalizing abortion nation wide.   

 

With a 14 to 16 week limit.

 

Here the left frames that as a national ban. To highlight the power of narrative manipulation....

 

https://rollcall.com/2024/03/04/responding-to-us-france-enshrines-abortion-access-in-constitution/

 

 

So, in France, a woman’s right to choose terminates after the 14th week, at which time the French become pro-life?  
 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 3/4/2024 at 5:58 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

France (the left) is celebrating legalizing abortion nation wide.   

 

With a 14 to 16 week limit.

 

Here the left frames that as a national ban. To highlight the power of narrative manipulation....

 

https://rollcall.com/2024/03/04/responding-to-us-france-enshrines-abortion-access-in-constitution/

 

 

Oh Tommy, there is a certain JE NE SAIS QUOI with your posts… Think about the different components of an abortion law:

 

1. Temporal limits.

2. List of exceptions.

3. Processes by which exceptions are granted.

4. Any constitutional protections.

5. Federal protections up to the temporal limit (or limits, in cases of state-by-state legislation).

6. Trustworthiness of politicians promoting said law.

 

Now think about what makes France’s current abortion situation different from Trump’s proposal, given the context of these 6 components. Also, make sure you understand what the difference between component #4 and component #5 implies. While your point about the media’s narrative framing is technically true, I also find their framing to be apt. Component #1 is basically the only commonality here between France and Trump.

 

14 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So, in France, a woman’s right to choose terminates after the 14th week, at which time the French become pro-life? 

 

WOAH. Leh-nerd Skin-erd. Now there’s a name I haven’t seen posting in a long time…a long time…

 

In France, I believe it’s 4 full months, technically, from one’s last period.

 

So imagine this scenario: Mademoiselle Adamski casually walking down a street in Paris, listening to “Par Les Paupieres” by Alizee, with a (plant-based) croissant in hand. She’s looking particularly ELECTRIC that day with her blonde highlights and a Chartreuse-colored long-sleeve pencil dress from Les Sublimes, ruched from the waist to the upper thighs. She serendipitously bumps into some guy along the sidewalk who looks like Timothee Chalamet. He cannot resist the scrumptious sight…and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout that croissant, Leh-nerd!!

 

Long story short because this is a family board (think: 50 Shades of KAY…very hawt…), eight months pass by and everyone’s favorite verbose vegan has a visible baguette in the oven. But the Timothee look-alike is suddenly no longer in the picture because, well, it’s a long story… So Kay visits a therapist and cites the overwhelming mental distress. Or how the Timothee look-alike was actually some rapist who more closely resembled Gerard Depardieu.

 

A quickly signed note or two later and…well…do you now see the contrast between France’s “pro-life” policy and what the pro-life debates are like here in America? Read my previous posts if you’re still confused. Or call on our friend, Muppy, to help explain things. Adieu, - La Kay

[Tommy Callahan]

Lots of words and didn't discredit anything. 

 

You all and media call teumoa talk of 15 week with exemptions a ban.  

 

When it passed in France. It's historic. 

 

Btw.  Abortion was unregulated and decriminalized in most of France.  Now it's not.  

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

WOAH. Leh-nerd Skin-erd. Now there’s a name I haven’t seen posting in a long time…a long time…

 

In France, I believe it’s 4 full months, technically, from one’s last period.

 

So imagine this scenario: Mademoiselle Adamski casually walking down a street in Paris, listening to “Par Les Paupieres” by Alizee, with a (plant-based) croissant in hand. She’s looking particularly ELECTRIC that day with her blonde highlights and a Chartreuse-colored long-sleeve pencil dress from Les Sublimes, ruched from the waist to the upper thighs. She serendipitously bumps into some guy along the sidewalk who looks like Timothee Chalamet. He cannot resist the scrumptious sight…and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout that croissant, Leh-nerd!!

 

Long story short because this is a family board (think: 50 Shades of KAY…very hawt…), eight months pass by and everyone’s favorite verbose vegan has a visible baguette in the oven. But the Timothee look-alike is suddenly no longer in the picture because, well, it’s a long story… So Kay visits a therapist and cites the overwhelming mental distress. Or how the Timothee look-alike was actually some rapist who more closely resembled Gerard Depardieu.

 

A quickly signed note or two later and…well…do you now see the contrast between France’s “pro-life” policy and what the pro-life debates are like here in America? Read my previous posts if you’re still confused. Or call on our friend, Muppy, to help explain things. Adieu, - La Kay

Mornin, Ma'am.  

 

I'm around, just stepping back a bit.  I used to consider this forum one place to listen/consider unvarnished opinions from the other side. While at times the dialogue got a bit ugly, or feelings got hurt, I took what I could, every now and again learned from it, and moved on.  Now, not so much.   

 

The French are a complicated people.  A reputation for surliness to the non-French.  Investing substantial time and effort to riot/loot/burn their cities, which seems like a god-awful amount of work to protest work.  The snail thing.  And the pretentiousness of "Timothee" is obnoxious, as if throwing an extra E at the end of a name bestows upon an individual some special status for all to behold.  He may be the face of his generation, but at the end of the day, don't be fooled by the name that he got, he's just Timeee....eee from the block. 

 

On the other hand, I'm not all that complex.  If asked, I would have presumed that the French had a fail safe for victims of sexual abuse, or to protect the life of the person carrying the child.   That makes sense to me.  

 

Beyond that, the story shared above really boils down to this for me:

• In the scenario where "Kay" was the victim of a sexual assault, I understand why she might decide to terminate the pregnancy;
• In the scenario where "Kay"  was living her best life yet faces "overwhelming mental distress", I understand why she might want to terminate the pregnancy, though for reasons different in scenario #1;

In both scenarios, the termination of the life of the child in the 8th month is barbaric from the perspective of the child.   In one case, I would understand that the needs of the person carrying the child trumped the rights of the unborn child.  In the other, I would see the needs of the child trumping the rights of person carrying the child.

 

I also find it interesting that in both cases, the right to choose is really an illusion.  Why the need for a doctor's note, like one is trying to avoid playing dodgeball in gym class in WNY in 1968.  Is there a fundamental choice or not?  

 

Finally, I want to acknowledge your suggestion that I review your previous posts, and/or reach out to the Mup for clarification if comprehension was a struggle for me.  It reminds me for every mansplainer, there's a (wo)mansplainer, and that people are really just people. 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

France goes from decriminalized to a 15 week limit is hailed by non western media.  

 

Western media and it's moronic parrots call the same 15 week limit, a ban.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

Question for those who believe life begins at conception:

 

If you were in a burning building and could only save either a baby or a tray of embryos, which would you save?

[Tommy Callahan]

So 15 weeks like France just did.  But the media called that a win for women. 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:56 AM, Tommy Callahan said:

Lots of words and didn't discredit anything. 

 

You all and media call teumoa talk of 15 week with exemptions a ban.  

 

When it passed in France. It's historic. 

 

Btw.  Abortion was unregulated and decriminalized in most of France.  Now it's not.  

 

What?! My most recent post to you was 128 words…I just checked with an online copy/paste word counter. Too much?? What a joke. I’ve already outlined for you the stark contrasts between France’s current abortion policy and Trump’s vague abortion proposal. Do with this info what you will.

 

FYI: the bill is historic because it made France the first country to ever have abortion a constitutionally protected right. Throughout French history, abortion has always been regulated to some extent but has become incrementally less so since the 1970’s. It has remained decriminalized in France since the 1970’s. I’m not sure you know what “decriminalization” means.

 

On 3/6/2024 at 11:44 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Mornin, Ma'am.  

 

I'm around, just stepping back a bit.  I used to consider this forum one place to listen/consider unvarnished opinions from the other side. While at times the dialogue got a bit ugly, or feelings got hurt, I took what I could, every now and again learned from it, and moved on.  Now, not so much.   

 

The French are a complicated people.  A reputation for surliness to the non-French.  Investing substantial time and effort to riot/loot/burn their cities, which seems like a god-awful amount of work to protest work.  The snail thing.  And the pretentiousness of "Timothee" is obnoxious, as if throwing an extra E at the end of a name bestows upon an individual some special status for all to behold.  He may be the face of his generation, but at the end of the day, don't be fooled by the name that he got, he's just Timeee....eee from the block. 

 

On the other hand, I'm not all that complex.  If asked, I would have presumed that the French had a fail safe for victims of sexual abuse, or to protect the life of the person carrying the child.   That makes sense to me.  

 

Beyond that, the story shared above really boils down to this for me:

• In the scenario where "Kay" was the victim of a sexual assault, I understand why she might decide to terminate the pregnancy;
• In the scenario where "Kay"  was living her best life yet faces "overwhelming mental distress", I understand why she might want to terminate the pregnancy, though for reasons different in scenario #1;

In both scenarios, the termination of the life of the child in the 8th month is barbaric from the perspective of the child.   In one case, I would understand that the needs of the person carrying the child trumped the rights of the unborn child.  In the other, I would see the needs of the child trumping the rights of person carrying the child.

 

I also find it interesting that in both cases, the right to choose is really an illusion.  Why the need for a doctor's note, like one is trying to avoid playing dodgeball in gym class in WNY in 1968.  Is there a fundamental choice or not?  

 

Finally, I want to acknowledge your suggestion that I review your previous posts, and/or reach out to the Mup for clarification if comprehension was a struggle for me.  It reminds me for every mansplainer, there's a (wo)mansplainer, and that people are really just people. 

 

“Womansplaining,” you say? C’est la vie. You entered a female reproductive rights thread with a question, be it genuine or sardonic, that intimated a close similarity between the pro-choice gold standard that is France’s abortion policy and that of Trump’s. My focus here at TBD PPP is to stop the spread of ridiculous right-wing propaganda. As I’ve repeatedly stated, the only commonality between the two is an approximately 15-week temporal limit. Trump won’t even clarify whether abortion rights are to be federally protected up through the first 4 months. He wants to ban many of the blue state laws after 4 months, for sure, but what about some of those red state laws before 4 months?

 

A doctor’s note is needed in France because abortion after 4 months is considered a major medical procedure. That seems like a reasonable minimal request to me and one that ultimately values a woman’s health and safety. In France, I think it might even be two prior consultation notes from health professionals: doctors, therapists, surgeons, etc… In any event, I suppose you are free to interpret this standard as an “illusion of choice,” but let’s not pretend like it’s anything as onerous as mandating the involvement of law enforcement, lawyers, and judges.

 

Also, why do you think acute mental distress is not a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy? What exactly do you know about major depressive disorder and other mental illnesses, and how pregnancy can exacerbate these conditions in women? And once the afflicted mothers are forced to give birth, do you care what happens to the mothers and babies via maternity leave, postnatal health care services, and general financial preparedness for motherhood? Are you willing to have your taxes raised a bit to help these mothers?

 

On 3/6/2024 at 5:52 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

France goes from decriminalized to a 15 week limit is hailed by non western media.  

 

Western media and it's moronic parrots call the same 15 week limit, a ban.  

 

LOL, thank you for calling me a “moronic parrot.”

 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 6:03 AM, Tommy Callahan said:

So 15 weeks like France just did.  But the media called that a win for women. 

 

Spamming falsehoods won’t will them into truths, you know.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

“Womansplaining,” you say? C’est la vie. You entered a female reproductive rights thread with a question, be it genuine or sardonic, that intimated a close similarity between the pro-choice gold standard that is France’s abortion policy and that of Trump’s. My focus here at TBD PPP is to stop the spread of ridiculous right-wing propaganda. As I’ve repeatedly stated, the only commonality between the two is an approximately 15-week temporal limit. Trump won’t even clarify whether abortion rights are to be federally protected up through the first 4 months. He wants to ban many of the blue state laws after 4 months, for sure, but what about some of those red state laws before 4 months?

 

A doctor’s note is needed in France because abortion after 4 months is considered a major medical procedure. That seems like a reasonable minimal request to me and one that ultimately values a woman’s health and safety. In France, I think it might even be two prior consultation notes from health professionals: doctors, therapists, surgeons, etc… In any event, I suppose you are free to interpret this standard as an “illusion of choice,” but let’s not pretend like it’s anything as onerous as mandating the involvement of law enforcement, lawyers, and judges.

 

Also, why do you think acute mental distress is not a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy? What exactly do you know about major depressive disorder and other mental illnesses, and how pregnancy can exacerbate these conditions in women? And once the afflicted mothers are forced to give birth, do you care what happens to the mothers and babies via maternity leave, postnatal health care services, and general financial preparedness for motherhood? Are you willing to have your taxes raised a bit to help these mothers?

 

 

 

My goodness you're closed-minded.   You should consider changing your screen name to Comrade Archie Bunker.   "Right wing propaganda"?  I "entered a female reproductive rights thread"?   Based on your approach to issues, you closely approximate the mindset of a 1950s dad getting off second shift at the plant going home and mumbling "My house, my rules!". 

 

I offered thoughts on abortion, and the juxtaposition between abortion to birth and a 15 week ban.  I don't control how you perceive that, nor your decision to drag Trump into it--that was your choice.   I appreciated your feedback on the workaround the French have in place, that's how we learn.  Again, I assumed there was a mechanism in place for extreme situations, but that was not the point of my initial post. 

 

On doctor's notes, I'm good with my perspective.  Your thoughts regarding consultation with multiple doctors, if accurate, only reinforces my belief.   Whatever 'pretending' that follows exists only in the four square corners of your mind. 

 

On your point on anxiety and depression, I think I was quite clear on my feelings regarding abortion in the 8th month.  From the perspective of the pregnant person, I understand.  From the perspective of the child, I do not.  What can I tell you beyond that?    

 

As for the obligatory (::::yaaaaaawnnnnn::::) tax question, my feeling is that with the unfathomable amount of money collected through tax, there's already plenty flowing through the system to address many (if not all) of the important societal issues we face.  I would certainly favor, for example, redirecting Biden's student loan boondoggle to assist people in this regard.  Would you? 

 

Pleasure speaking with you.  On some level, I suppose, I missed your three hour lectures. 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

The Catholic Church is consistent. It believes that life begins at conception. Human life begins at conception. Therefore, methods of birth control that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg are wrong; they deliberately "end life" by interfering with the natural development of that life. They also believe that IVF is wrong because it necessarily involves the destruction of some fertilized eggs at the embryonic stage. (They think it's wrong for other reasons too, but those reasons are beside the point here.)

 

The Alabama Supreme Court is consistent. The people of Alabama, speaking through their elected representatives, believe life begins at conception. They even accord such life "personhood." The Alabama Supreme Court therefore says that IVF procedures that would include the destruction of embryonic human life is illegal under Alabama law. 

 

Mike Johnson believes human life begins at conception. So does Katie Britt, Senator representing the very same Alabama and soon to be forgotten over-emoting SOTU response speaker. Yet Mike Johnson and Katie Britt support legislation that exempts IVF related "deaths" from the standard protections given to human life.

Mike Johnson and Katie Britt are inconsistent. Taking an innocent human life is taking an innocent human life. We wouldn't say, "this woman seems to be carrying quadruplets, and to increase the survival chances of the largest two we must abort the smaller two." But apparently we can say "implant only the one or two best looking test tube embryos and dispose of the others."

 

If you believe human life begins at conception and that such life is entitled to all the protections we apply to "persons," then you cannot agree with any IVF procedure that would not result in implantation of every fertilized egg. 

 

I am not just saying that Mike Johnson and Katie Britt and their ilk are hypocritical. They are politicians. 

I am saying that they don't really believe their own position. That strikes me as worse than hypocritical. They are not saying, "Yes, IVF procedures that may dispose of embryos constitute a form of legalized abortion, but politics is the art of compromise, and here we understand that public opinion is against us, so we will allow that exception." No. They are pretending the issue doesn't exist.

 

They are inconsistent, hypocritical, and they are liars.

[Tommy Callahan]

FYI: the bill is historic because it made France the first country to ever have abortion a constitutionally protected right. Throughout French history, abortion has always been regulated to some extent but has become incrementally less so since the 1970’s. It has remained decriminalized in France since the 1970’s. I’m not sure you know what “decriminalization” means

 

Now it has a national 15 week limit and it's regulated.  

 

Also, why do you think acute mental distress is not a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy

 

Like pre pardom depression.  Anxiety about being a parent?  

Spouse change.  Job change.  

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8 by Tommy Callahan

[BillStime]

There were no threats you desperate fks

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Irv]

Another lie.  What a mess.  

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 3/8/2024 at 12:12 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

FYI: the bill is historic because it made France the first country to ever have abortion a constitutionally protected right. Throughout French history, abortion has always been regulated to some extent but has become incrementally less so since the 1970’s. It has remained decriminalized in France since the 1970’s. I’m not sure you know what “decriminalization” means

 

Now it has a national 15 week limit and it's regulated.  

 

Also, why do you think acute mental distress is not a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy

 

Like pre pardom depression.  Anxiety about being a parent?  

Spouse change.  Job change. 

 

Note for whomever is reading this discussion: France has never had elective abortion legally available beyond 4 months, nor has there ever been a time in France’s history in which abortion was not regulated in some way.

 

I do need to clarify my use of the phrase, “acute mental distress.” I was referring to serious mental health situations in which the pregnant mother poses a physical health risk to herself…i.e., suicidal ideations. In France, a pregnant female beyond 4 months only needs to convince 1-2 certified therapists or psychologists that this is roughly the situation in which she finds herself. So if she is truly committed to a late-term abortion, then it’s not hard to legally get one. I don’t condone manipulating or lying to a health professional; I’m simply stating the reality of what a French woman can do. Conservatives in the United States would never approve of this type of exception, thus highlighting one of many reasons why current French abortion policy is considered significantly more progressive than Trump’s proposal.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 11:09 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

My goodness you're closed-minded.   You should consider changing your screen name to Comrade Archie Bunker.   "Right wing propaganda"?  I "entered a female reproductive rights thread"?   Based on your approach to issues, you closely approximate the mindset of a 1950s dad getting off second shift at the plant going home and mumbling "My house, my rules!". 

 

I offered thoughts on abortion, and the juxtaposition between abortion to birth and a 15 week ban.  I don't control how you perceive that, nor your decision to drag Trump into it--that was your choice.   I appreciated your feedback on the workaround the French have in place, that's how we learn.  Again, I assumed there was a mechanism in place for extreme situations, but that was not the point of my initial post. 

 

On doctor's notes, I'm good with my perspective.  Your thoughts regarding consultation with multiple doctors, if accurate, only reinforces my belief.   Whatever 'pretending' that follows exists only in the four square corners of your mind. 

 

On your point on anxiety and depression, I think I was quite clear on my feelings regarding abortion in the 8th month.  From the perspective of the pregnant person, I understand.  From the perspective of the child, I do not.  What can I tell you beyond that?    

 

As for the obligatory (::::yaaaaaawnnnnn::::) tax question, my feeling is that with the unfathomable amount of money collected through tax, there's already plenty flowing through the system to address many (if not all) of the important societal issues we face.  I would certainly favor, for example, redirecting Biden's student loan boondoggle to assist people in this regard.  Would you? 

 

Pleasure speaking with you.  On some level, I suppose, I missed your three hour lectures. 

 

My Gawd, Leh-nerd…this emotional diatribe…your time of the month or something??

 

<< Kay hands Leh-nerd a tall glass of cranberry juice to help alleviate his menstrual cramps. >>

 

Are you calm now? Ok, let’s logically address your questions:

 

You should reconsider your stance on the mental health exception (see: clarification above where I distinguish “acute mental distress” from mild cases of depression and anxiety). Since a pregnant female who commits suicide kills the fetus, too, wouldn’t it be better to at least rescue one instead of losing both? In some cases, these situations can’t be resolved in time with medication and talk therapy (…over new parenthood worries, partner separation, career turbulence, etc.). We don’t want to drive these vulnerable women and girls toward seeking out measures of self-harm or very risky back-alley abortions. This is certainly not the most exercised abortion exception, but it’s more common than we’d like among teenagers and women of lower socioeconomic standing. Moreover, only the medical community should be qualified to adjudicate these cases…not the legal one nor the general public.

 

You say we already raise enough tax revenue to support new mothers as needed, but the fact of the matter is that the money doesn’t get to them. The American social safety net is paltry compared to the rest of the Western world, and the United States is the only modern industrialized country in the world without a universal health care system. So we not only force financially and emotionally unprepared mothers to give birth, but we also don’t guarantee these women the proper early motherhood resources (health care, day care, maternity leave, etc.) compared to more rational countries like, say, FRANCE.

 

I would prefer to raise tax revenue for public maternity care with Wall Street speculation taxes, progressive federal income tax structures, military budget reductions, and a few prudent tricks here and there from Modern Monetary Theory. I admittedly haven’t been following Biden’s student loan “boondoggle” too closely, and I also don’t think this is the appropriate place to address such a nuanced topic. But before advocating for major alterations to postsecondary education policy, note that the extreme levels of student loan debt among my generation (in large part due to college educations costs far outpacing inflation-adjusted wage growth since the 1970’s) are highly suboptimal for macroeconomic growth.

 

There. Feel any better, Mr. Grumpy??

 

<< Kay rubs Leh-nerd’s belly, hands him one of her (unused) menstrual pads. >>

[Tommy Callahan]

France create a 15 week ban.  Lefties cheer 

 

Mississippi creates a 15 week ban and Dems fight it to the supreme Court to get row thrown out.  

 

Trump suggest a 15 week limit.  Dems scream it's a ban. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11 by Tommy Callahan

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

 

My Gawd, Leh-nerd…this emotional diatribe…your time of the month or something??

 

<< Kay hands Leh-nerd a tall glass of cranberry juice to help alleviate his menstrual cramps. >>

 

Are you calm now?

This is purely a stylistic observation.  I believe that 'that time of the month' humor/shot plays much better in the moment than in this type of setting.  Using the caricature of Archie Bunker again, I can understand as men of that era started their workday, a co-worker or foreman gives them a hard time, and "Gee Stan, is it that time of the month again?" followed.  Sure as night follows day, uproarious laughter follows, maybe a red face or two as well. The point is, the, uh, flow was there. 

 

In this case, you, again in the Archie Bunker role, see the opening, analyze several possible replies, decide to head home, grab the IBM Selectric and type up the best zinger of the time.  You realize you're out of envelopes, head to Woolworths, buy a box, grab a pack of Juicy Fruit from the counter, and head home.  The next day, you stop at the post office, but a .07c stamp, drop it in the mail, and...7 days later I open the mailbox (I was on vacation in the Poconos), open the letter and BAM! message delivered.  

 

On the other hand, sequels and remakes are all the rage in Hollywood these days.  Kudos to you for carving your own laborious path. 

12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Ok, let’s logically address your questions:

 

You should reconsider your stance on the mental health exception (see: clarification above where I distinguish “acute mental distress” from mild cases of depression and anxiety). Since a pregnant female who commits suicide kills the fetus, too, wouldn’t it be better to at least rescue one instead of losing both? In some cases, these situations can’t be resolved in time with medication and talk therapy (…over new parenthood worries, partner separation, career turbulence, etc.). We don’t want to drive these vulnerable women and girls toward seeking out measures of self-harm or very risky back-alley abortions. This is certainly not the most exercised abortion exception, but it’s more common than we’d like among teenagers and women of lower socioeconomic standing. Moreover, only the medical community should be qualified to adjudicate these cases…not the legal one nor the general public.

If you were concerned with mental health issues of this magnitude, why bother with the backstory of Timothee-cee and the French lass?  Why not just get to the point?  

 

I'll consider your perspective, as I generally try to do.  I recognize my perspective is shaped by my experience, and I'm comfortable with that.  As for who(m) adjudicates what, Kay, we're a nation of laws (sometimes) and I'll continue to make my voice heard to the extent I can do that.   That does not mean I want vulnerable women seeking backroom abortions, it simply means that I look at, and perhaps value more, the child in the womb at 8 months and 4 days than someone else might.  

12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

You say we already raise enough tax revenue to support new mothers as needed, but the fact of the matter is that the money doesn’t get to them. The American social safety net is paltry compared to the rest of the Western world, and the United States is the only modern industrialized country in the world without a universal health care system. So we not only force financially and emotionally unprepared mothers to give birth, but we also don’t guarantee these women the proper early motherhood resources (health care, day care, maternity leave, etc.) compared to more rational countries like, say, FRANCE.

 

I would prefer to raise tax revenue for public maternity care with Wall Street speculation taxes, progressive federal income tax structures, military budget reductions, and a few prudent tricks here and there from Modern Monetary Theory. I admittedly haven’t been following Biden’s student loan “boondoggle” too closely, and I also don’t think this is the appropriate place to address such a nuanced topic. But before advocating for major alterations to postsecondary education policy, note that the extreme levels of student loan debt among my generation (in large part due to college educations costs far outpacing inflation-adjusted wage growth since the 1970’s) are highly suboptimal for macroeconomic growth.

Kay, I wouldn't want to talk about student loan forgiveness if I were you, either.  It's not one of your boogeymen.  We all have them. 

 

Student loan debt in your generation (and others)  starts with a decision on the personal level to assume debt where it might not necessarily otherwise be incurred.  Why and how that happens is complicated and multi-faceted, and certainly reasonable people can disagree about solutions, but that's the fact, jack.  

 

12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

There. Feel any better, Mr. Grumpy??

 

<< Kay rubs Leh-nerd’s belly, hands him one of her (unused) menstrual pads. >>

This is the problem with some of your generation, you're soft.  Throw a pre-measured tide pod in the wash, rinse, and reuse.  It might even reduce your carbon footprint. 

Edited March 11 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[BillStime]

4 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

France create a 15 week ban.  Lefties cheer 

 

Mississippi creates a 15 week ban and Dems fight it to the supreme Court to get row thrown out.  

 

Trump suggest a 15 week limit.  Dems scream it's a ban. 

 

Hoax

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Changing the name cause this wedge topic isn't working.

 

Look at the EU. Different abortion limits and laws based on the nation/state.

 

could see us being the same way.  Its not a federal issue.