FoxHastings said: ↑ Abortion isn't murder, it is a legal medical procedure. NO one said they didn't have a right to express their erroneous views. They can scream and holler about abortion being murder but that doesn't make it murder.
Not surprised that the Catholic church doesn't view women as humans with the same rights everyone else has...
And still you forget the Greco-Roman citizens in the Decapoline cities not to mention in the blessed Roman army and their camp followers.
Well, there's been about 10,000 years of abortions so I don't think America , or any other country, is going to change.... BTW, I highly value the rights of women
Sadly, that would solve exactly nothing. Both sides would view a compromise as simply a transitional stage. The first step in the final solution. Ex.: if abortions are made illegal beyond 24 weeks, once that is in place, the next step for pro-life would be to roll that time frame back further.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Abortions are illegal after 24 weeks. Yes, IF the health or life of woman or fetus is in jeopardy THEN it is legal for abortion to be performed after 24 weeks.
Or, IF you are in one of the states that no such restrictions. THERE, it is legal for abortion to be performed after 24 weeks regardless.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Abortions are illegal after 24 weeks. Yes, IF the health or life of woman or fetus is in jeopardy THEN it is legal for abortion to be performed after 24 weeks. Please list and show the law in each state that says one can have an abortion at anytime with no restrictions. The following is true in all 50 states: Yes, IF the health or life of woman or fetus is in jeopardy THEN it is legal for abortion to be performed after 24 weeks.
So, you are asking me to provide a link to 7 state laws that don't exist? In other words, prove a negative? Please provide the state law for every state that restricts abortion to pre-24 weeks (and no, providing the federal statute does not count, because states are allowed to have their own regulations). Because it is a much more realistic data request to provide legislation that exists, than to provide legislation that does not exist. There are 7 states with no time restrictions on abortion: Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont. There is probably 50 articles that come up on Google or Bing that back this (ex. https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/abortion-laws-by-state-these-are-your-right/). Wikipedia has a very good summary of the state differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state. Before you lose your sh1t about Wikipedia as a source, everything in the article is cited,
If a state has no laws on abortion that does not change the fact that it is illegal to have an abortion after 24 weeks(viability) unless the health or life of woman or fetus is in jeopardy . Show a state where a woman, 8 1/2 months pregnant, can walk into a hospital and have an elective abortion on demand Please show an example of a doctor performing an abortion LEGALLY after 24 weeks on a healthy woman and fetus.
Oregon. As noted in the links I provided, or in any one of dozens of other links that are accessible in seconds. I could continue to provide links, but you have apparently decided to either not read them or acknowledge their reality. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions https://www.liveaction.org/news/three-myths-third-trimester-abortions/
FoxHastings said: ↑ If a state has no laws on abortion that does not change the fact that it is illegal to have an abortion after 24 weeks(viability) unless the health or life of woman or fetus is in jeopardy . Show a state where a woman, 8 1/2 months pregnant, can walk into a hospital and have an elective abortion on demand An example? From Guttmacher: " The overall result is a patchwork of state limitations on abortion throughout pregnancy that leaves many women unable to receive the care they need."" NO where in your link does it state that a woman may get an elective abortion after 24 weeks.
Read them....no where did it say that any state allows elective abortion at any time. From your link, this sad comment on the US """ The overall result is a patchwork of state limitations on abortion throughout pregnancy that leaves many women unable to receive the care they need.""....and shows the states have limitations...from YOUR link
You believe abortion should be illegal because your interpretation of your religion says so. We have a thing called the 1st. Forbids your using government to force your religious views on the rest. Case closed. Now if you'd like to discuss ways to reduce abortions without forcing your religion down our throats I'm ready to listen.
And, for the last time, a state NOT allowing in a time frame is a limitation/restriction that would be codified. You are pretending that a lack of codified allowance somehow means that it is not allowed. Make you a deal: provide me a link showing that it is legal to pet a beagle's head on main street between the hours of 4 and 6 on Thursdays in Delaware. If you cannot provide me that codification, that means it is illegal. Since you will be unable to come up with this link, I am done talking about this. Source after source say these states do not have gestational restrictions. Yet, in your refusal to admit your misspoke, you are delving in the obtuse ridiculous.
If they don't have state restrictions then RvW is the rule of law. You STILL have not given an example of a woman being able to walk into a hospital 8 1/2 months pregnant and get an elective abortion. Did you have a point? What is it? Do you think women are getting late term abortions for no reason? I read your link and it said: """ The overall result is a patchwork of state limitations on abortion throughout pregnancy that leaves many women unable to receive the care they need.""....and shows the states have limitations...from YOUR link
Irrelevant, records are not compiled. (And that is likely mostly intentional) And one would hardly expect that a doctor performing late-term elective abortions would keep detailed records on them or would be keen to publicly advertise what they are doing. One might expect perhaps some former doctor who has had a drastic change of heart and left the business to blow the whistle, but any doctor who was doing that at 8 months would be extremely unlikely to be the type of person who would ever have a change of heart, we can all presume. Now tell me, FoxHastings, are you in favor of records being kept and compiled (and verified, of course) exactly when these procedures take place and what the medical reasons for them are? Yes or no?
Desperately seeking one verifiable fact in that heap of stinking emotional blather Blah blah blah “innocent babies” Blah blah blah “evil” Blah blah blah “liberals” Blah blah blah “slutty women” Truth......... abortion does NOT involve babies. A baby is a born foetus It is neither evil or good it is what it is - a necessary medical procedure Republican women and Christian women also have abortions A majority of women seeking an abortion are in a stable relationship and already have at least one child Truth - the only guaranteed way to reduce abortion is to make long acting reversible contraception free and easily available
Name the hospitals where late term ELECTIVE abortions are performed legally as your friend, willburroughs , claims they are. He can't show any proof to back up his claim that late term abortions are legal in some states ...which is what we were discussing.... .
If he is performing these abortions in a hospital he must keep records. This is why backyard abortionists can get away with butchering women often over many years
Another one bites the dust.... """""willburroughs said: ↑ And, for the last time, a state NOT allowing in a time frame is a limitation/restriction that would be codified. You are pretending that a lack of codified allowance somehow means that it is not allowed. Make you a deal: provide me a link showing that it is legal to pet a beagle's head on main street between the hours of 4 and 6 on Thursdays in Delaware. If you cannot provide me that codification, that means it is illegal. Since you will be unable to come up with this link, I am done talking about this. Source after source say these states do not have gestational restrictions. Yet, in your refusal to admit your misspoke, you are delving in the obtuse ridiculous. Click to expand...""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" FoxHastings :If they don't have state restrictions then RvW is the rule of law. You STILL have not given an example of a woman being able to walk into a hospital 8 1/2 months pregnant and get an elective abortion. Did you have a point? What is it? Do you think women are getting late term abortions for no reason? I read your link and it said: """ The overall result is a patchwork of state limitations on abortion throughout pregnancy that leaves many women unable to receive the care they need.""....and shows the states have limitations...from YOUR link
I'm not exactly sure what your objection is here... you're saying that both sides would view any compromise as a transitional move towards something else? That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. But even then... how can it be that a slippery slope would benefit both sides simultaneously? And if a compromise did lead to both/all sides seeing benefit and or getting closer to their ideal state of things, then that should be thought of as a good thing, no? I mean, the purpose here should be to make things better than what the status quo is. So if a compromise ends up being closer to what everyone wants than what we have now, it seems to me we shouldn't then talk about that as if its somehow a bad thing. But I also believe that we really shouldn't consider things in terms of just two sides in the first place. Especially given that there are many more than just two positions to take on an issue like abortion. We should at the same time also avoid thinking of people as if they are hive-minds. Sure, some people would, even after a compromise, still drive hard to see their ideals put into place, but many more would likely accept the compromise for what it was and move on; for some it might even be their ideal and for others any lingering disagreement might be so miniscule as to not be worth the effort. And you or others might say that because not everyone would move on, that the compromise then isn't a perfect solution... that it doesn't really solve the issue of disagreement. And to that I would say... it isn't necessary that a compromise 100% solves the issue for 100% of the people. The fact that a compromise doesn't lead to unanimous agreement does not at all mean that nothing was solved at all or that the compromise wasn't useful. The very nature of compromise after all is that not everyone will get 100% of what they want; that is to be expected... But compromise is still a beneficial thing, as most people will at least have gotten a little bit of what they wanted, more so than they had before, and thus tensions are lowered and many will be able to come to accept the way things are and move on to focus their mental energies on more important things. Obviously, we each would prefer our own ideals on any given subject, but if that's not a realistic option, wouldn't you rather have a mutually beneficial compromise that most could agree was an improvement over where we were than to constantly argue about ideals of which never come to be? I know I would... -Meta