Republican's Latest Monumental Faux Pas

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/row-vs-wade.555904/

This thread has a poll about R v W being over turned. This website is very RW leaning. Near 70% RW.
And the poll say NO, by more than a 2 to 1 margin.

 

Taking the politics completely out of the situation, legal experts say Roe was one the worst legal decisions ever made. It just doesn't hold up constitutionally.

But maybe it's become so deeply ingrained in our culture that it can't be repealed.

 

It proved that this absurd allegation of yours was WRONG!

Those "extreme and highly unlikely scenarios" occur between 8,000 and 10,000 times each year!

Or would you prefer to just let those 8,000+ women DIE each year because you have a superstitious belief about some imaginary "sanctity of life" that IGNORES the life and/health of those women?

Yes, women do have a RIGHT to "self defense" against a fetus that is causing them harm and potentially death?

 

There is NOTHING unconstitutional about the RvW ruling.

 

Most legal scholars disagree. They call it dubious at best.

 

No. They don't.

 

Fallacious allegation without any attempt to provide CREDIBLE substantiation.

 

Apparently my point went right over your head. WOOOSH.
I'd be interested to see a source for your 8000-10000 late term abortion per year to save the lives of the mothers though. You really should provide a link when making such a claim. If it's an accurate number the law is being grossly misused and relying on something like giving birth is dangerous for the mother so it justifies abortion right up to the point of birth.

 

45 yrs. Been to the USSC more than 1X.
Which legal experts say that? Has been ample opportunity to show it was the WORST decision ever made.

 

2X you've said that, with out any shred of evidence.

 

If they're old enough a daughter should be able to date whomever they want shouldn't they?

At any rate "abortion rights" will always poll better than the number who actually support it because it has the word "rights" attached to it. Americans are conditioned to see "rights" as an innately good thing. Attaching "rights" to an issue probably adds about twenty points of polling support to it.

 

I've heard that by different legal experts on more than one occasion.

For starters, Roe V. Wade established a "right" that was not only not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but is in fact twice removed from the U.S. Constitution because it was inferred based on the right to privacy which also does not appear in the U.S. Constitution and was also inferred.

Roe V. Wade has largely survived for the simple reason that contrary to popular opinion, members of the U.S. Supreme Court absolutely hate rendering controversial decisions or making major changes. Especially social changes. The court if at all possible when it comes to major social issues prefers to be a "trailing" indicator rather than a "leading" one.

 

Over the years, the decision’s laughable constitutional inadequacy has been widely recognized. Shortly after it came down, Harvard Law School professor John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion, wrote that “Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

“Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding,” a former Blackmun clerk, Edward Lazarus, has written. “And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”

 

You've heard that, but neither you nor the other poster claiming it, has shown any proof.
I am sure there are some, but his/her claim is most legal experts. I doubt, seriously, that is the case.

USSC doesn't care about popular opinion. That is very low on any judges list of priorities.

 

No, I don't think he meant that.

 

Precedent rules, regardless of how bad the law is.

 

I’ve watched 46 years of experts discuss the case.

 

That your "point" was lost somewhere in outer space is not my problem since I am dealing with FACTUAL REALITY here on Earth.

There are several sources for abortion statistics but by far the two MOST RELIABLE and CREDIBLE are the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute. I will provide links to both so you can check them out for yourself however LiveScience did an excellent review that looked at BOTH sets of data so I am going to provide that as a BALANCED approach.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

While the CDC does NOT gather as much data as Guttmacher their statistical analysis reaches the same PERCENTAGE findings as Guttmacher. BOTH agree that later term abortions account for only 1.3% of all abortions. Out of the 638k abortions reported to the CDC 8,300 were late term abortions.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

Guttmacher has a much larger reporting base which is WHY it shows a different number of abortions as the CDC however they BOTH agree that only 1.3% of all abortions are late term. Using their 2014 data (as opposed to the CDC's 2015 data) the Guttmacher figure is 12k.

For this reason I chose 8k as the lower end because those figures are substantiated from both sources whereas only Guttmacher reports the higher figure so I averaged that (8k:12k) to reach the higher figure of 10k.

LiveScience addressed this discrepancy.

https://www.livescience.com/17529-trimester-abortions.html

Your following comment;

The risk from having an abortion in the first 2 semesters is on the order of 11 times LESS than it is for giving birth. (Yes, you can find that in the links provided above.)

Late term abortions have higher risks because that is when the problems come to light with both the fetus and they woman concerned. @FoxHastings has provided extensive data in other posts detailing all of those risks to the woman's health and/or life. The strain on the heart when giving birth at 9 months is considerable and if the heart is not 100% healthy it can fail during the birth process which can last for up to 18 hours although that is the high end. An abortion does not place the same strain on the heart albeit there is still some risk given that it is a surgical procedure being undergone on a patient with compromised health factors.

In Canada there are NO laws restricting abortion because they see abortion as entirely a MEDICAL DECISION which is best determined by the PROFESSIONAL who KNOWS both the risks and the patient and what is in the best interests of both. The RvW ruling understood this and STIPULATED that ALL WOMEN do have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to an abortion in the 3rd trimester for any threats to their health and/or life. States like NY have come to the same sane and rational conclusion that elected politicians should have nothing whatsoever to do with making life or death decisions for pregnant women.

One additional point that is purely anecdotal but it does apply to many of the women who do have late term abortions. In the two instances that I am aware of BOTH women WANTED to have a baby. One of them already had 2 children and the other was trying to have her first child. In the first instance the fetus was dying and poisoning the woman and she would have died without the abortion leaving her two other children without a mother. In the second the fetus was diagnosed with a fatal abnormality meaning that it would not survive for more than a day after birth. Both women subsequently became pregnant again and delivered healthy babies.

The reason for that anecdote is because it is rare for someone to reach the 3rd trimester and decide to abort a healthy fetus without there being some other serious abnormality occurring. These late term abortions are NEVER undertaken lightly and require serious surgery which is not cheap either.

That there are so FEW of them relative to both abortions and live births means that they are NOT a major issue of national concern but rather just isolated tragedies that occur infrequently. Per the CDC there are 3.55 million births per year so late term abortions represent just one quarter of one percent of WANTED pregnancies.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm

The question that NEEDS to be asked of those who want to BAN ALL late term abortions is WHY do you want to NEEDLESSLY RISK the LIVES of 8,000 to 10,000 women each and every year for a fetus that is unlikely to survive anyway?

How does KILLING THOUSANDS of women fit into pretending to be "pro-life" when they are WILLING to SACRIFICE the lives of those women for their own superstitious beliefs?

 

Wrong!

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

 

Geeez all I asked for was verification of your claim that 10000 women per year get late term abortions to protect the life of the mother. Instead you bury me in paperwork with a classic document dump tactic. Must be some reason you did that huh.
As for my point that went over your head let me try again. The blanket statement you attempted to defend was that law allows abortion right up to birth. When I challenge that you say well it does IF the life or health of the mother is at risk. That's like saying the law allows murder and when challenged on that replying well it does if it's self defense. Get it now?
As for the mothers health. Why is it necessary to kill a very late term baby? Why not just do a c section and save both lives?

 

That you flatly REFUSED to even read the FACTS that support the CHOICE position establishes that you have no interest in engaging in any FACT BASED discussion.

Had you bothered to acquaint yourself with any of the RELEVANT FACTS you would realize that your question is nonsensical in the light of a fetus suffering from congenital deformities that would require specialized care from a woman who is experiencing serious medical health conditions of her own brought on by the pregnancy. No one else is going to adopt an infant with those conditions and the woman concerned is in no position to provide that care and attention.

But all of those FACTS are IGNORED by those with an anti-woman AGENDA because it exposes the ugly reality that this is about CONTROLLING women rather than actually CARING about the fetus and what happens to it subsequently.

 

Why do you insist that every woman is a clone and every situation with pregnancy and birth are exactly the same for every woman and every pregnancy ???

Why do you insist that??

This will shock you but all women are different and all have different situations…….that's just the way it is and no matter what you think, women are individuals..




CALL a doctor, talk to the experts who are INVOLVED in the ACTUAL situations and that is NOT YOU !..and ask them if every woman's situation is exactly the same...go ahead...the truth is waiting for you to discover it...

 

***********************

 

So it's about not wanting to give birth to a baby with health issues and not about the mothers health. Birth defects are found early in pregnancy and waiting to the last minute to abort for that reason doesn't ring true.

First Trimester Screening
First trimester screening is a combination of tests completed between weeks 11 and 13 of pregnancy. It is used to look for certain birth defects related to the baby’s heart or chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome. This screen includes a maternal blood test and an ultrasound.

• Maternal Blood Screen
  The maternal blood screen is a simple blood test. It measures the levels of two proteins, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A). If the protein levels are abnormally high or low, there could be a chromosomal disorder in the baby.

• Ultrasound
  An ultrasound creates pictures of the baby. The ultrasound for the first trimester screen looks for extra fluid behind the baby’s neck. If there is increased fluid found on the ultrasound, there could be a chromosomal disorder or heart defect in the baby.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html

 

So righties can't even overturn a bad decision.... a decision so bad that no one has been able to challenge it …