Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Revea

Liberals' belief in "mind your own business" is highly selective:

Don't like guns? Then don't get one.

Don't like SUVs? Then don't get one.

Don't like oil pipelines? Then don't get one.

Earlier Democrats would have said: Don't like slavery? Then don't get one.

Do you think they would have been right to tell the abolitionists to "mind their own business"? Or does your argument kind of fall flat when the lives of helpless human beings are at stake?

 

Zero? Lol. You’ve no idea how a female body works. Prolly cause sex education is now verboten.

 

A helpless and innocent human life has been needlessly snuffed out. My harm or lack thereof isn't really the point, any more than it would be the point, for example, in the case of wanting to prevent a genocide.

 

I thought it was obvious that "set the limit at zero weeks" meant a ban on elective abortions. Apparently that was too vague for you though.

 

But a woman can be one week pregnant, have no clue, drink too much tequila, and miscarry. Murder or nah?

Most women have no clue they are pregnant until week 8 or more.

Should child bearing age females be not allowed to drink?

 

Obviously women are going to need to start letting the State track their cycle. Govt can’t protect a life it doesn’t know exists. Save those tampons ladies, they may be a crime scene!

 

Rs will naturally Darwin themselves from the gene pool thereby benefitting all. Good riddance.

 

Pregnancy tests can only be purchased when an FBI agent is available to follow you home and escort you to an incubation facility, if positive.

 

So, just ignore them? Life threatening emergencies from pregnancy “are minuscule” so we ignore them?
I guess you are also OKAY then with the case in Argentina with the 11 year old that was raped. You Okay with them being sedated and tied to the bed so they do not self harm?

 

So - now abortion is not genocide against “blacks”?

 

And again your proof of that is?

Considering the vast majority of aborted babies are women living at or below the poverty line - what are the chances that baby would have received adequate nutrition? One would also assume that the mother could be an addict - FASD? plus how many would have antenatal care leading to undetected congenital/developmental anomalies. Then there are the approx 20% that will naturally miscarry - I suppose you are in favour of arresting any woman who has a miscarriage on the basis it could have been deliberate

Not all babies are perfect Gerber babies

 

If I were on a jury under those circumstances, I'd probably vote "nah".

I don't think that's accurate, but if you've got a source that supports the claim, I'd be interested to review it. To be fair, most of my basis for disbelief is anecdotal: my wife was pregnant 3 times, and knew well before eight weeks on all 3. Ditto for the handful of women whose timing of knowing I'm aware of. 4-5 weeks seems quite common, based again on my second-hand experience.

I don't think anyone's proposing that as a law.

 

Oh, I've got at least enough of an idea to have conceived several children.

 

And yet hundreds of women in the USA alone have been charged with murder or child harm for less

((Sigh)j).

Yes such a depth of medical knowledge/sarcasm

You do realise don’t you that for the first two weeks of a pregnancy the woman is not actually pregnant?

 

As a percentage of abortions they are a minuscule proportion. I wouldn't suggest that anyone "ignore" a rare but life-threatening medical emergency, but rare cases probably don't need to be the basis for sweeping public policy either. If we want to carve out some narrow exceptions for these rare edge cases, I don't have much of an issue with that. As someone who is not an elected lawmaker tasked with hammering out the finer points of the law, I don't feel these edge cases are common enough for me to waste much time / energy typing out some detailed policy position on something that'd just be a hypothetical.

I don't know anything about "the case in Argentina", but if what you say is accurate and an 11-year-old girl was raped, I can say fairly definitively, that's not something I'd describe myself as "OK" with. I suppose I can understand if some extreme measures were taken to prevent her suicide, tragic as the whole situation may be.

Frankly, I don't know what you hope to accomplish by making continued references to this one anecdote.

 

In the USA, quite good. Outside of a few tragic cases of child / elder abuse, or the occasional lost-in-the-wilderness story, almost no one starves to death.

None of the rest of your post seems Iike very good justification for killing a baby, sorry.

I don't believe that's been a position I've espoused, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any proposals along those lines by any elected lawmakers, but you can keep strawmanning if you can't respond to real arguments.

 

False assumption.

Biology tells us that a zygote is life.

Genetics tells us that zygote has it's own DNA that is human.

No religious argument needs to be made.

 

Because cases like this are much more common than you seem to think, and how are we to determine them without putting the victim through the entire experience all over again?

If a little girl has been raped she has enough problems just trying to recover from that and if a woman is in such circumstances that she would rather lose her child than deliver it what bloody business of ours is that anyway? You are taking a woman in the saddest circumstance she will likely ever encounter and telling her she must either turn it into an emotional running sore very likely to ruin her life or leave the State. What kind of heartless tyrants must Republicans BE anyway?

 

I've read enough statistics on it over the years that I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge of at least roughly how rare they actually are, at least as a % of total abortions.

 

And yet you have yet to link to any valid source

 

Alito tried to do just that, and failed miserably.

 

This sums it up rather concisely...

 

Wouldn't know myself. Haven't read it since it's just a draft.

 

Your wife got lucky. Most women don’t consider it until they are 3-10 days late, depending on how regular they are. When I was young, I got my period anywhere from 4-6 weeks. It’s not uncommon.

some women start puking in two days. Lots never have a symptom for weeks.

your cookie cutter, personal anecdote aside, not everyone is the same. Some women literally don’t know until their water breaks. They have no right to an abortion. Any third trimester abortion should only be for dire circumstances for the mother. I feel similarly, but less restrictive, for 2nd trimester.

 

Ya know...I'm pro-choice. But lately you all are using so much hyperbole and being wrong that I just can't help but point it out.

Even if they were to completely ban ALL abortion that still will not make women "livestock" or "incubators". There is no, and will be no, law that demands women get pregnant. Women will still have full control over whether or not they get pregnant under all but the most extreme of cases. That doesn't happen with livestock. The only time that could be considered even slightly "similar" would be in cases of rape. And even that you have to stretch because no one made that rapist rape anyone. Certainly not by anyone in a position of authority.