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

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Again, you skipped my question. When, scientifically, do you think human life begins? Then we'll proceed to your questions.

When you're born is when the government begins considering you a person.  That's when your "life" begins.  Before that, you are a fetus, albeit a human one.  You don't have to answer any questions you're afraid to answer, and you're not controlling the discussion.  

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

That link doesn't say anything about late term abortions.  The trump nonsense about abortions "after birth" is the classic fear mongering.

 

About 93% of reported abortions in 2019 were performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, 6% were conducted between 14 and 20 weeks and 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The link I posted is policy in each state. The current abortion laws in each state. Many of the most populous states allow abortions up until birth. Those policies/laws do not align with not wanting a late term abortion. They support the right to a late term abortion.

 

Last time, when do you think, scientifically, a human life begins?

 

If you refuse to answer, I won't be continuing this conversation with you. I'm not going to let you blow past my questions and carry on with your agenda.

[ChiGoose]

Just now, daz28 said:

When you're born is when the government begins considering you a person.  That's when your "life" begins.  Before that, you are a fetus, albeit a human one.  You don't have to answer any questions you're afraid to answer, and you're not controlling the discussion.  

When you’re born is also when the GOP stops considering you a person. 

[Pokebball]

Just now, daz28 said:

When you're born isk when the government begins considering you a person.  That's when your "life" begins.  Before that, you are a fetus, albeit a human one.  You don't have to answer any questions you're afraid to answer, and you're not controlling the discussion.  

A fetus is nothing but a stage in human life, just like an infant, a child, a teenager, and adult, etc. 

 

Earlier you said viability. Now you're saying birth. All while acknowledging a human life begins before both of those. Don't be afraid to answer this question. We all see your reluctance. When do you think human life begins?

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

The link I posted is policy in each state. The current abortion laws in each state. Many of the most populous states allow abortions up until birth. Those policies/laws do not align with not wanting a late term abortion. They support the right to a late term abortion.

 

Last time, when do you think, scientifically, a human life begins?

 

If you refuse to answer, I won't be continuing this conversation with you. I'm not going to let you blow past my questions and carry on with your agenda.

I've answered your question numerous times.  If you're trying to get me to waffle it's not working.  WHEN YOU'RE BORN.

 

The debate was that most people are likely against late-term abortions.  The fact that only 1% are performed at over 21 weeks strongly supports that.  

[Pokebball]

11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You’re right. I totally forgot that the Senate GOP scuttled their own bill. They’re even bigger cowards than I usually think of them. 

Dems control the senate though. Dems could have passed it on their own. They didn't need the repubs if all of 'em supported it. I guess we're good calling it a bipartisan refusal to pass it?

 

So we are left today, where I thought we were. The house passed a border bill that is collecting dust on Schumer's desk. The Senate has done nothing of any value. Nothing the dem senators collectively support. The balls in Schumer's court.

Edited April 11 by Pokebball

[daz28]

Just now, Pokebball said:

A fetus is nothing but a stage in human life, just like an infant, a child, a teenager, and adult, etc. 

 

Earlier you said viability. Now you're saying birth. All while acknowledging a human life begins before both of those. Don't be afraid to answer this question. We all see your reluctance. When do you think human life begins?

No, I said viability was the term that legal minds were using to discuss at what point abortions should be allowed to be performed.  Before viability is when the fetus is still considered to be a part of the woman's body, and protected by her right to bodily autonomy.  There's 2 different term uses for viability in pregnancies.  Lehnerd skynerds link discusses them both.  

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I've answered your question numerous times.  If you're trying to get me to waffle it's not working.  WHEN YOU'RE BORN.

 

The debate was that most people are likely against late-term abortions.  The fact that only 1% are performed at over 21 weeks strongly supports that.  

Thank you. To restate then, you think scientifically human life begins at birth.

 

You and I are so very far apart on this, it's probably not worth your time to continue. Thanks for the time you've given me on this.

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

Thank you. To restate then, you think scientifically human life begins at birth.

 

You and I are so very far apart on this, it's probably not worth your time to continue. Thanks for the time you've given me on this.

It seems your definition might be after the first time the fertilized egg divides.  If you're walking down the bike path, and see some tiny unidentifiable biological material on the ground, and I told you it was a human embryo, would you call it human life?  This whole issue is made stupid by the religious right.  Most normal, sane people would be just fine with just agreeing on a cut-off time, defined by doctors.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

21 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm not claiming to be qualified to determine viability.  I've already said that's a term that needs to be decided by doctors, and not non-secular GQP nutjob politicians.  

I know what you said, it’s why I shared the article.  This particular group of doctors, not the evil Death Star GQP nutjobs that lurk behind every door, cautions that policy based on your nebulous concept of “viability” is a very bad idea.   Don’t shoot the messenger.
 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Dems control the senate though. Dems could have passed it on their own. They didn't need the repubs if all of 'em supported it. I guess we're good calling it a bipartisan refusal to pass it?

 

So we are left today, where I thought we were. The house passed a border bill that is collecting dust on Schumer's desk. The Senate has done nothing of any value. Nothing the dem senators collectively support. The balls in Schumer's court.

Disagree. The Dems had the GOP craft a border bill that the Dems would never support on its own in exchange for supporting democracy abroad. The GOP reneged and trashed the whole endeavor the second their godking expressed displeasure. That is not the same as one side of the House passing an extreme bill that had zero chance of success. 
 

Back to the topic at hand, the GOP could potentially save themselves from serious problems in November and put the Dems in a really tough spot by bringing a bill to the the House floor that expands access to contraception and healthcare, emphasizes prenatal care, guarantees paid parental leave, and makes healthcare affordable. 
 

Not only would such a bill greatly help reduce elective abortions, but it would provide a much-needed lifeline to GOP candidates. 
 

So why won’t they do it?

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I know what you said, it’s why I shared the article.  This particular group of doctors, not the evil Death Star GQP nutjobs that lurk behind every door, cautions that policy based on your nebulous concept of “viability” is a very bad idea.   Don’t shoot the messenger.
 

 

 

The viability number should be carefully and very deeply researched from a large swath of doctors.  The non-secular GQP nutjobs shouldn't be involved, whether they are lurking behind the door or not.  This is only a discussion about viability, and if you have, what you believe to be a better determinative factor, I'm all ears, even if it's nebulous.  I have no fear of messengers, just the people that are enveloped in a cult mentality, that only believe their messengers, despite the facts/truth before them.   

[Pokebball]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Disagree. The Dems had the GOP craft a border bill that the Dems would never support on its own in exchange for supporting democracy abroad. The GOP reneged and trashed the whole endeavor the second their godking expressed displeasure. That is not the same as one side of the House passing an extreme bill that had zero chance of success. 
 

Back to the topic at hand, the GOP could potentially save themselves from serious problems in November and put the Dems in a really tough spot by bringing a bill to the the House floor that expands access to contraception and healthcare, emphasizes prenatal care, guarantees paid parental leave, and makes healthcare affordable. 
 

Not only would such a bill greatly help reduce elective abortions, but it would provide a much-needed lifeline to GOP candidates. 
 

So why won’t they do it?

The bill was crafted by a dem, a repub and an independent (who was a dem the year before). It was shoved down the others throats in the 11th hour with very little knowledge of what was in the bill prior to that. Too many found to much in the bill they didn't like so they refused to support it. And I'm talking dems as well.

 

I'm not going to defend most in DC. Most are sorry excuses for reps that are more interested in partisanship than they are representing those of us across the country.

 

Biden can strengthen the border with a few strokes of his pen. Schumer can pick up HB2 and start working it. Amend it to his hearts content. Do something. He doesn't because of partisan politics.

 

Clowns!

[ChiGoose]

28 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

The bill was crafted by a dem, a repub and an independent (who was a dem the year before). It was shoved down the others throats in the 11th hour with very little knowledge of what was in the bill prior to that. Too many found to much in the bill they didn't like so they refused to support it. And I'm talking dems as well.

 

I'm not going to defend most in DC. Most are sorry excuses for reps that are more interested in partisanship than they are representing those of us across the country.

 

Biden can strengthen the border with a few strokes of his pen. Schumer can pick up HB2 and start working it. Amend it to his hearts content. Do something. He doesn't because of partisan politics.

 

Clowns!

Lots of excuses for the GOP here. 
 

Would the bipartisan bill be better than the status quo? Most experts seem to think so. 
 

Is there any chance that HB2, a solely partisan job with no bipartisan input will be signed into law? Nope. 
 

Seems like the Senate bill should have been able to move forward. But that would have made the godking mad, so now the toadies need to bend over backwards to excuse a tremendous GOP self-own. 

[Pokebball]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Lots of excuses for the GOP here. 
 

Would the bipartisan bill be better than the status quo? Most experts seem to think so. 
 

Is there any chance that HB2, a solely partisan job with no bipartisan input will be signed into law? Nope. 
 

Seems like the Senate bill should have been able to move forward. But that would have made the godking mad, so now the toadies need to bend over backwards to excuse a tremendous GOP self-own. 

Biden reversing his reversing EOs would be the best.

[Doc]

10 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Biden reversing his reversing EOs would be the best.

 

Yup.  But, again (and again, and again, and...) that would give Trump and win and Dems can't have that, can they?  

[BillStime]

Notice the cult will NEVER ban Viagra.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Notice the cult will NEVER ban Viagra.

 

 

This is correct.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for the Senate Dems to force a vote on repeal of the Comstock Act just to put Republicans on the record about what their true intentions are.

[BillStime]

Hillary is correct. It's laughable that MAGA thinks they have any credibility on this issue. They simply cannot be trusted, and women will vote accordingly.

 

 

[Doc]

Trump's a(n alleged) racist.  Why would he ban abortion, which non-whites use 6X more than whites?

Edited April 12 by Doc

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 hours ago, daz28 said:

I've answered your question numerous times.  If you're trying to get me to waffle it's not working.  WHEN YOU'RE BORN.

 

The debate was that most people are likely against late-term abortions.  The fact that only 1% are performed at over 21 weeks strongly supports that.  

Data varies, but suggests 1 - 1.3%, which equates to between 10,000 - 13,000 late term abortions each year, assuming the stats are accurate and that the books aren't somewhat cooked here.  

 

By contrast, 18,500 +/- murders during the same time, so relying on % may make it seem less awful, but the numbers are not insignificant.   

 

I'd agree that most sensible, sane people are against late term abortions, which simply means that reasonable people transition from "pro-choice" to "pro life" somewhere during a pregnancy.  Yet, there are clearly people pushing abortion until birth, and laws that reflect that.  

 

In a normal, healthy pregnancy, at what point do you personally transition from "it's a person's right to choose" to "you have to think of the child"?  

[daz28]

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

Data varies, but suggests 1 - 1.3%, which equates to between 10,000 - 13,000 late term abortions each year, assuming the stats are accurate and that the books aren't somewhat cooked here.  

 

By contrast, 18,500 +/- murders during the same time, so relying on % may make it seem less awful, but the numbers are not insignificant.   

 

I'd agree that most sensible, sane people are against late term abortions, which simply means that reasonable people transition from "pro-choice" to "pro life" somewhere during a pregnancy.  Yet, there are clearly people pushing abortion until birth, and laws that reflect that.  

 

In a normal, healthy pregnancy, at what point do you personally transition from "it's a person's right to choose" to "you have to think of the child"?  

The 1% is for ALL abortion at week 21 and past, so using the data, you'd assume as you get to 22, 23 and so on, there's likely a significant dip.  I have no idea where that transition point is.  I think abortion is not a good thing, but I also don't believe the state should be meddling into bodily autonomy very much if at all.  I think the last time this was a big issue was assisted suicide, and I think they came up with reasonable regulations to allow people to pass on peacefully and with dignity.  Of course the amount of nutters was lower then.  

Edited April 11 by daz28

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[Thurmal34]

35%

 

They have no idea how badly they porked themselves.

 

it's not even gonna be close.

 

Dimmochs.

[SCBills]

I can 100% respect Mahers position.   I don’t agree, but at least he’s not arguing in bad faith. 
 

You can be pro-choice for healthy elective abortions, but you can’t also have the moral high ground. 
 

 

[Doc]

9 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

35%

 

They have no idea how badly they porked themselves.

 

it's not even gonna be close.

 

Dimmochs.

 

If the future of America rests on whether you can kill a baby after 15 weeks, we're all porked.  Worse than we already have been under Biden.

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/11/2024 at 11:39 AM, The Frankish Reich said:

This is correct.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for the Senate Dems to force a vote on repeal of the Comstock Act just to put Republicans on the record about what their true intentions are.

 

This is such a good idea that I’m guessing Democrats have already been planning to do so immediately before their Congressional summer recess. It might be more politically strategic to have the Comstock Act become a major topic of debate leading up to the national party conventions.

 

A few other thoughts on this topic:

 

1. Abortion is exposing multiple cracks in the Constitutional edifice that probably shouldn’t have been left unrepaired for this long.

 

One of these cracks is the failure of the Bill of Rights to more explicitly protect the right to privacy. At the moment, this right has been left vague enough and piecemeal in the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. An all-encompassing right to privacy should specifically mention a right to “sexual” privacy, thereby preventing ridiculous state laws like 6-week abortion bans and no protections for rape cases. I realize that such an amendment won’t realistically pass for at least another generation’s time, but Democrats in the meantime can put this goal in their official party platform while stridently advocating for a federal codification of Roe v. Wade (with clarification on temporal limits, exceptions, and who adjudicates the exceptions).

 

Another Constitutional crack in need of repair is articulation of the Supreme Court branch. It should be democratized with limits on term, limits on number, codes of conduct, and a better federal system of oversight.

 

2. National poll trends continue to show independent voters shifting to the pro-choice side since Dobbs (June 2022), regardless of Trump’s messaging obfuscation on how to proceed (Tenth Amendment argument vs. federal ban) or on who to blame (Jackson WHO vs. himself and his SC Justice nominations).

 

I count six swing states: Arizona (11 EC votes), Nevada (6 EC votes), Wisconsin (10 EC votes), Michigan (15 EC votes), Pennsylvania (19 EC votes), and Georgia (16 EC votes). Everywhere else, Trump holds a narrow EC lead of 235 to Biden’s 226 (source: 270towin.com). We all know what happened in Arizona recently. We all know how badly Republicans have been underperforming polls recently in elections with abortion referendums.

 

At this point, Trump’s only way out of this catch-22 issue will be to simply ignore and deflect, focusing 100% on Biden’s cognitive health or the mishandling of the genocide in Gaza or perhaps…oh, I don’t know…the scourge of communist Marxist atheist “trannies” illegally crossing the border so to participate in women’s sports (a.k.a. the resonating right-wing social crisis du jour)??? Eeek!!!

 

3. Women stuck in red states should be made aware of The Brigid Alliance, a national nonprofit organization that addresses the financial and logistical challenges of those seeking an abortion over long distances. I liken them to the Underground Railroad of the post-Dobbs era because their services are most pertinent in the South. Every Bible Belt state now has some sort of draconian abortion law.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

No one outside dumb PACs want to ban that drug.  

 

It's making. It mail order and teledock that removes the safety factor of the mother.  These pills can have severe side affects if used after certain gestation.

[BillStime]

Let's go!

 

 

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

Can Biden even read anymore? Let's go!

[BillStime]

Roevember is coming 

 

 

[Thurmal34]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:33 AM, Doc said:

 

If the future of America rests on whether you can kill a baby after 15 weeks, we're all porked.  Worse than we already have been under Biden.

 

keep telling women what is best for them. lemme know how it pans out.

 

35%

[phypon]

On 4/24/2024 at 2:15 PM, BillStime said:

Roevember is coming 

 

 

None of the women in that photo are coming close to having a baby.  Pretty sure they all invest in stock in companies that make "scissors" 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, phypon said:

None of the women in that photo are coming close to having a baby.  Pretty sure they all invest in stock in companies that make "scissors" 

 

Hilarious.

 

[Tommy Callahan]