How Would A Rape/Incest Exception For Abortion Work?

Soooo you have no issue with also overturning the “right to privacy” which was the foundation of RvW?

 

Yes, which is why the states are the place where this decision is going to be made. The overreach of Roe and Casey have been dissolved. The states continue to be able to legislate as necessary. RBG said exactly what this decision said. or did you forget that? There are no excuses here. If you live in a state that chooses to allow its citizens to kill off their unborn kids, so be it. If you believe you can create a consensus in a state that does not, be my guest. The Hobbs decision simply puts this decision back into the hands of the people. Are you not a fierce advocate of the democracy that will decide these cases now? No?

And they you get personal, never a good sign for having a real argument. I don't have a dog in the hunt as they say, except that the horrible precedent of legal judicial activism in Roe and Casey have finally been redressed. And for that, I am happy.

Now, explain to us why you believe that a woman should be able to make the death of her child a choice she gets to make.

 

How do you get that idea? I'm flatly against abortion rights and elective abortions. The only time I am willing to support abortion rights is when the life of the mother is endangered or (as we're talking about) in the cases of rape/incest (though even then I believe that rape/incest have to be proven.

 

And when the maternal mortality rate rises and we see young women dying -what then? When the infant mortality rate rises - what then? These states banning abortion - what are they doing to address the poverty that these babies will be born into? Is there going to be extra funding allocated to keep alive those unfortunate babies born with life limiting disabilities? How many “Baby Ks” are you going to fund?

 

Whoever said that? The constitution does actually codify several examples of the fundamental right to be left alone by government. Familiarize yourself with the document. What you've asserted however, is that government ensure the right of women to kill their unborn kids. I can't find the tin the constitution, can you? If you assert that as a right of "privacy", how can you not suggest that a father could just as easily kill his family? Wouldn't that also constitute the same measure of "privacy" that you demand we recognize? You seem confused by what government must respect. Were you not recently in favor of government having the right to directly interfere with the medical decisions of americans? I recall that. The bill of rights certainly does, as a whole list of measures, protect the privacy of our citizens, from their religious activity, to their speech, to their ability to assemble, to their right to defend themselves, to their right to be left alone from the policing powers of the government without both due process and probable causes. All of those protections, and you'd suggest that only the ability to murder your unborn child as a woman describes your definition of a right to privacy. Ill simply call that misguided.

 

How endangered? 10% chance of death? 20%? 50%? 90%?

 

From what would either maternal mortality or having young women die be created by? This isn't the 1940s. Explain why you believe that mortality would be effected at all? Life of the mother (ectopic pregnancies, for example) are already covered in the law. Life of the mother is already a consideration. Rape/Incest are. So where would this maternal mortality come from again?

And worse, like Janet Yellen, you claim the labor of these mothers, don't you. You believe they must be unencumbered to make their labor avaiable for your exploitation, right? Because, after all, aren't these women the work force that you demand be cheap and reliable for you to exploit? You call the process of child birth as a shackle to poverty, and yet, the world of examples otherwise demonstrate how dismissive you are of the ability of the family unit to succeed. And isn't that really what the problem is? Successful minority families? And isn't the use of abortion the specific tool democrats have used for decades to dismantle the minority family unit? To ensure that there are absent fathers, to ensure the continued poverty within those populations? Look deeply inward in your party. You'll see the evil racism and your party's war on minority families staring you back in the face.

 

You are asserting the “right to privacy” exists independent if Roe? We’ll supply a link to that please (futile request I know as I have yet to see you supply a link )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-privacy-united-states-could-look-without-roe-v-wade

 

Sorry, I understand these issues are complicated and difficult to process. I feel for your struggle here...

 

oh! Dear! You have never actually researched this subject have you? Did you not hear of the case of Savita Halappanavar? The case that triggered Ireland to overturn its oppressive and dangerous anti- abortion laws?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2207423

Premature ruptured membranes is very very dangerous and should be treated immediately

The so called “pro-lifers” are the ones denying women of America paid maternity leave

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Ahhh! No link! That usually means that the poster could not back thier own claims and that those claims were either invented or misunderstood

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

What a mess of an argument you tried here. It doesn't address the issues, you attempt appeal to emotion first followed by a misnomer of statistical conclusion not supported by your evidence. But who cares? stamp your feed, hold your breath, etc. The US law isn't a mishmash of emotionalism. You still haven't recognized the obvious mischaracterization of the law which you clearly don't understand that led you to believe that Irish aboriton restrictions were either similar or equivalent to US law. Because they aren't. Sorry this is so difficult for you.

 

Stating that a poster is a liar is a board transgression.

And besides that, I think you are WAY off based in this case.

 

I didn't accuse him of "being a liar". I said I suspected him of lying, since what he claims is not consistent with numerous positions he has taken in past posts.

It is possible I could be misremembering and confusing him with another member.

 

As I have pointed out to you before, your citing of RBG is pure sophistry.

There are multiple problems with the law as states want it.

There is no provision for rape and incest.

There is no provision for rational decisions concerning the woman's health.

There is no provision for protection of access and education concerning procreation and contraception.

There is no common belief that an embryo is a "child". In fact, a majority of Americans believe that abortion must be available.

There is no assurance of proper pre and postnatal care, nutritional support, etc., for women forced to procreate.

Etc.

The half assed extremism being driven by Republicans is just plain not acceptable under any view of morality or ethics.

 

LOL!!! Where's the difference in saying he is lying and saying he is a liar???

If you want to point out something he said in the past, fine. Maybe you will discover that he isn't totally absolutist, or that he changed his mind on some part of the issue - something that one would hope we all can do.

 

"How Would A Rape/Incest Exception For Abortion Work?"

a woman would say she was raped and that would be that, anti-choicers could no longer attack the rape victim or her doctors for her having an abortion

 

False. Texas law makes no exceptions for rape or incest. And, that law is being used as a pattern by other states that have Republican majorities in their legislatures.

And, there is no guidance on when doctors won't be prosecuted for terminations of pregnancies that pose a risk to the life of the woman.

Did you get hit on the head, or what?

 

These laws need to be put on hold until the ramifications of the law are actually thought through.

Suggesting that women's health should become irrelevant until some future legislative action is just plain immoral.

 

No one's doing that. Every state now has the power to write the laws its people want.

 

No one is doing ... what?

So far, I know of NO state that has their abortion laws including a clear understanding of when a doctor may or may not abort a fetus that is causing physical risk to the woman.

In fact, Texas has law that bans the use of the only two drugs certified for the treatment of miscarriage, because they can also be used in conjunction with abortion.

In Wisconsin, doctors are being told that they won't be prosecuted in various circumstances that the new law criminalizes. However, that is the choice of individuals currently serving. New prosecutors, etc., could easily not see it that way, and there is the issue of statutes of limitation that would allow new enforcement of acts that took place under previous leadership.

This goes on and on. Look it up.

The catch here is that the extremists making these laws have no interest in actually ensuring the safety and health of women and their doctors. Those are NOT the considerations for which they are rewarded.

They are being rewarded at the polls by how extreme they are, how harshly they impose their personal and religious beliefs.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...nleashed-legal-chaos-for-doctors-and-patients

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...s-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

 

It just happened. It's going to take time for the political process in those states to work. The wholesale green light to allow abortions is just as extremist as what you're citing.

 

No, we've had limits on abortion and an understanding of doctor/patient decision making for 50 years.

Proposing that is extremist is obvious nonsense. Besides, what existed gave deference to the variety of attitudes and religious beliefs of America citizens - something for which these extremists have absolutely NO respect.

What we're seeing is a whole new set of laws created by extremists, and it is crystal clear that they were not thought out.

 

You do understand how laws are created, right? If the current "extremists" are unsatisfactory to the people they can vote them out. That's my point.

 

So, how many years of women dying do you think is necessary to cause Republicans to realize that they were unconscionably immoral?