Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 19 2024 10:50 Introvert wrote: The first story took place in 2021 (before Dobbs even and only months after the Texas law went into effect) and second appears to be a little later although every article I have clicked is annoyingly vague on the exact date. Certainly after both of the clarifications mentioned in the article.
Is the dead woman feeling better now?
As I pointed out, it sounds like the dead women didn't get the care she needed days later. Which is probably one reason the hospital has clamed up. But again, I blame the people creating the confusion. Somehow it's very confusing but not a single person has been prosecuted under any of these laws. Almost like it's confusion that, whatever it's source, will be dealt with, and not malice, as pretty much everyone who opposes these laws likes to think.
We're doing the dance again, the same old dance. Except this time the "my body my choice" crowd during the covid debacle is on the "your body my choice" side.
On November 19 2024 12:14 Magic Powers wrote: We're doing the dance again, the same old dance. Except this time the "my body my choice" crowd during the covid debacle is on the "your body my choice" side.
The sides didn't switch, no one was restricting anyones ability to get the vaccine and no one was threatened with jail if they didn't get the vaccine. Both times one side wants people to not die by following a system that has worked repeatedly over time and the other side either doesn't care or doesn't think anyone is dieing.
On November 19 2024 10:50 Introvert wrote: The first story took place in 2021 (before Dobbs even and only months after the Texas law went into effect) and second appears to be a little later although every article I have clicked is annoyingly vague on the exact date. Certainly after both of the clarifications mentioned in the article.
Is the dead woman feeling better now?
As I pointed out, it sounds like the dead women didn't get the care she needed days later. Which is probably one reason the hospital has clamed up. But again, I blame the people creating the confusion. Somehow it's very confusing but not a single person has been prosecuted under any of these laws. Almost like it's confusion that, whatever it's source, will be dealt with, and not malice, as pretty much everyone who opposes these laws likes to think.
I also blame the people creating the confusion.
Its not like the people creating the confusion have the power to clarify exactly what is and what isn't a crime that you will be charged with. I'm sure when the people who have the power to do this find out that people are dieing from this will see it as a bad thing and will send out a message publically that they won't be charged with murder if they preform emergency care on someone who is about to die.
I mean how bad of a person would you have to be to pick up the phone and call a news station with "no yeah you can preform the medical operation known as an abortion under these circumstances and not get charged".
On November 19 2024 10:50 Introvert wrote: The first story took place in 2021 (before Dobbs even and only months after the Texas law went into effect) and second appears to be a little later although every article I have clicked is annoyingly vague on the exact date. Certainly after both of the clarifications mentioned in the article.
Is the dead woman feeling better now?
As I pointed out, it sounds like the dead women didn't get the care she needed days later. Which is probably one reason the hospital has clamed up. But again, I blame the people creating the confusion. Somehow it's very confusing but not a single person has been prosecuted under any of these laws. Almost like it's confusion that, whatever it's source, will be dealt with, and not malice, as pretty much everyone who opposes these laws likes to think.
I also blame the people creating the confusion.
You would think the laws banning abortions would be more clear on what the exceptions actually are. If something is an exception, it needs to be spelled out by definition. Instead it's just "if the state of the pregnancy gives really, really bad vibes, like REALLY bad vibes", only you have to risk falling on the wrong side of the blurry line they deliberately created and then make your case in court that the pregnancy did, in deed, give really bad vibes.
Women die every day because medical professionals fear that doing their job will land them in prison. If someone who went through the rigor and outright work necessary to become a doctor can't figure out how to abide by your law then maybe it's a shitty law.
You at least have to concede that people who advance the "chilling effect" argument have a point.
On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote: I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect. Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law?
Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law?
The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue.
Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name.
The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine.
If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem.
Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays?
That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.
A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course the doctor doesn't pull out a glock to terminate the fetus. They use an ultrasound-guided needle to go through the abdomen and injection digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus's heart.
The Atlantic did an article on an abortion provider that performs late term abortions.
Hern stopped performing first-trimester abortions a few years ago; he saw too much need for later abortions, and his clinic couldn’t do it all. The procedure he uses takes three or four days and goes like this: After performing an ultrasound, he will use a thin needle to inject a medicine called digoxin through the patient’s abdomen to stop the fetus’s heart. This is called “inducing fetal demise.” Then Hern will insert one or more laminarias—a sterile, brownish rod of seaweed—into the patient’s cervix to start the dilation process.
He also estimates that roughly half of the abortions he performs there is nothing wrong with the fetus
Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses. He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances. Many of the clinic’s teenage patients receive later abortions because they had no idea they were pregnant. Some sexual-assault victims ignore their pregnancies or feel too ashamed to see a doctor.
...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus—or its ability to survive outside the uterus—is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it.
So when you write
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote: in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote: A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section.
To try to claim that late term abortions result in the delivery of a healthy baby are simply untrue. The physician is literally explaining clear as day how he goes about killing the fetus. There's no T-1000 terminator or glock involved, hardy har har, but it still happens. He's not talking about all the healthy babies he has delivered at his abortion clinic that caters to women seeking abortions later in pregnancy.
It's a grey area depending on whether it's more 20 weeks or 36 weeks but if it's 32 weeks or whatever and induction was on the table then I'd call that infanticide. As I keep saying, you can terminate a healthy late term pregnancy in a way where nobody dies. If someone is deliberately opting for the dead baby route then I don't love that.
The large majority of people don't agree with "abortion at any gestation for any reason." But there's also some radicals in the left that do believe in that, even if it amounts to infanticide. The existence of those radicals is why politicians on the left have difficulty answering the question whether there should be "any" restrictions on abortion. Here's the Secretary of Health and Human Services being repeatedly asked the same question and refusing to answer
The question is "Do you believe there should be any restrictions on abortion through the 3rd trimester" He just keeps responding in "I believe in Roe v Wade" which doesn't even answer the question because Roe v Wade simply allows governments to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester, it doesn't mandate whether they do or don't. VP Harris employed the same strategy of non-answering the question in a remarkably similar fashion
When "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan asked Harris what week of pregnancy abortion access should be cut off, the vice president repeatedly said "the protections of Roe v. Wade" need to be put back in place, but did not directly answer the question.
Are they given the same script?
It's hardly a one-off question dodge for Kamala either. Another example is when she was asked if she still supported using tax dollars to pay for sex change operations for illegal immigrants in prison and her response was essentially "Trump paid for them too!" which also doesn't answer the question. Obviously an unpopular policy but also don't want to piss off progressives by denying inmates gender-affirming care, so dodge, dodge, dodge.
The hallmark of her campaign was dodging questions and deflecting back to Trump. The idea being that if she didn't give a straight answer then should could appeal to both the far left and the moderates by making them believe her answer would really be what they wanted to hear. Instead of appealing to both sides she ended up appealing to neither. But for some reason people in this thread think it's impossible to try to appeal to both sides at the same time.
John Kennedy is a complete moron in that video. In the first 70 seconds alone, he claimed that Xavier Becerra said that a healthy mother should be able to kill a healthy baby the day before birth, and then Kennedy read a quote where Xavier Becerra absolutely did not say that. Kennedy's entire line of questioning is a misrepresentation of the abortion issue.
The only relevant stories I know are the ones about pregnant women with cancer (or similar diseases). The issue not being that what "abortion" is isn't defined, which it is, but that "life of the mother" isn't, despite being in every single state, so there are some cases of women with cancer, who if they took chemo, would be harmful or cause a miscarriage, and would be advised to terminate the pregnancy first and then pursue treatment, but the CANCER isn't serious enough to count. Otherwise taking a case of someone using abortifacients, having complications, and dying due to medical negligence, and saying "look this is clear proof of why abortifacients need to be available" is the height of cluelessness. Occasionally people die from not having abortions. Occasionally pregnant people die from abortions (babies always do). But they are both dwarfed by the number of people simply dying from maternity. And some people's heads would explode from cognitive dissonance if they saw a miscarriage after mandatory covid vaccination.
In all of these cases I look at the Democrats in Congress who were too stupid to pass any federal law about this despite controlling the whole federal government multiple times over 50 years and wonder what misogyny drives them not to pursue this supposed key issue with the same vigilance they did with gay marriage. I say supposed key issue because the fact that Blumpf managed to win a popular majority even after shrewdly nuking his support on BOTH sides of this issue and reversing the 2022 collapse of his party that occurred because of it - would have to be considered pulling a political rabbit from a hat.
On November 19 2024 12:14 Magic Powers wrote: We're doing the dance again, the same old dance. Except this time the "my body my choice" crowd during the covid debacle is on the "your body my choice" side.
The sides didn't switch, no one was restricting anyones ability to get the vaccine and no one was threatened with jail if they didn't get the vaccine. Both times one side wants people to not die by following a system that has worked repeatedly over time and the other side either doesn't care or doesn't think anyone is dieing.
That's also true, you're right as well. What I'm trying to show is that the "my body my choice" crowd during covid never believed in that idea to begin with. They're "my body my choice" when it affects them and "your body my choice" when it affects others. Unveiling this facade seems important. That's also why I showed the polls that demonstrate the selfishness of older and married women because they're already past the big dilemma. When they're faced with the same abortion dilemma for themselves, they quickly change their minds. But as long as only other women are affected, they gladly control their bodies. I think we're both highlighting two different equally valid points.
On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law?
The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue.
Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name.
The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine.
If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem.
Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays?
That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.
A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course the doctor doesn't pull out a glock to terminate the fetus. They use an ultrasound-guided needle to go through the abdomen and injection digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus's heart.
The Atlantic did an article on an abortion provider that performs late term abortions.
Hern stopped performing first-trimester abortions a few years ago; he saw too much need for later abortions, and his clinic couldn’t do it all. The procedure he uses takes three or four days and goes like this: After performing an ultrasound, he will use a thin needle to inject a medicine called digoxin through the patient’s abdomen to stop the fetus’s heart. This is called “inducing fetal demise.” Then Hern will insert one or more laminarias—a sterile, brownish rod of seaweed—into the patient’s cervix to start the dilation process.
He also estimates that roughly half of the abortions he performs there is nothing wrong with the fetus
Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses. He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances. Many of the clinic’s teenage patients receive later abortions because they had no idea they were pregnant. Some sexual-assault victims ignore their pregnancies or feel too ashamed to see a doctor.
...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus—or its ability to survive outside the uterus—is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it.
So when you write
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote: in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote: A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section.
To try to claim that late term abortions result in the delivery of a healthy baby are simply untrue. The physician is literally explaining clear as day how he goes about killing the fetus. There's no T-1000 terminator or glock involved, hardy har har, but it still happens. He's not talking about all the healthy babies he has delivered at his abortion clinic that caters to women seeking abortions later in pregnancy.
It's a grey area depending on whether it's more 20 weeks or 36 weeks but if it's 32 weeks or whatever and induction was on the table then I'd call that infanticide. As I keep saying, you can terminate a healthy late term pregnancy in a way where nobody dies. If someone is deliberately opting for the dead baby route then I don't love that.
The large majority of people don't agree with "abortion at any gestation for any reason." But there's also some radicals in the left that do believe in that, even if it amounts to infanticide. The existence of those radicals is why politicians on the left have difficulty answering the question whether there should be "any" restrictions on abortion. Here's the Secretary of Health and Human Services being repeatedly asked the same question and refusing to answer
The question is "Do you believe there should be any restrictions on abortion through the 3rd trimester" He just keeps responding in "I believe in Roe v Wade" which doesn't even answer the question because Roe v Wade simply allows governments to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester, it doesn't mandate whether they do or don't. VP Harris employed the same strategy of non-answering the question in a remarkably similar fashion
When "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan asked Harris what week of pregnancy abortion access should be cut off, the vice president repeatedly said "the protections of Roe v. Wade" need to be put back in place, but did not directly answer the question.
Are they given the same script?
It's hardly a one-off question dodge for Kamala either. Another example is when she was asked if she still supported using tax dollars to pay for sex change operations for illegal immigrants in prison and her response was essentially "Trump paid for them too!" which also doesn't answer the question. Obviously an unpopular policy but also don't want to piss off progressives by denying inmates gender-affirming care, so dodge, dodge, dodge.
The hallmark of her campaign was dodging questions and deflecting back to Trump. The idea being that if she didn't give a straight answer then should could appeal to both the far left and the moderates by making them believe her answer would really be what they wanted to hear. Instead of appealing to both sides she ended up appealing to neither. But for some reason people in this thread think it's impossible to try to appeal to both sides at the same time.
The "third trimester" is not strictly defined, that's why a legal answer can't be given. The question is a trap and it's correct to refuse to answer it until the words being used are defined very precisely. Look it up, some definitions refer to the time after 18 weeks. That'd be far too early.
The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue.
Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name.
The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine.
If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem.
Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays?
That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.
A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course the doctor doesn't pull out a glock to terminate the fetus. They use an ultrasound-guided needle to go through the abdomen and injection digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus's heart.
The Atlantic did an article on an abortion provider that performs late term abortions.
Hern stopped performing first-trimester abortions a few years ago; he saw too much need for later abortions, and his clinic couldn’t do it all. The procedure he uses takes three or four days and goes like this: After performing an ultrasound, he will use a thin needle to inject a medicine called digoxin through the patient’s abdomen to stop the fetus’s heart. This is called “inducing fetal demise.” Then Hern will insert one or more laminarias—a sterile, brownish rod of seaweed—into the patient’s cervix to start the dilation process.
He also estimates that roughly half of the abortions he performs there is nothing wrong with the fetus
Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses. He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances. Many of the clinic’s teenage patients receive later abortions because they had no idea they were pregnant. Some sexual-assault victims ignore their pregnancies or feel too ashamed to see a doctor.
...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus—or its ability to survive outside the uterus—is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it.
So when you write
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote: in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote: A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section.
To try to claim that late term abortions result in the delivery of a healthy baby are simply untrue. The physician is literally explaining clear as day how he goes about killing the fetus. There's no T-1000 terminator or glock involved, hardy har har, but it still happens. He's not talking about all the healthy babies he has delivered at his abortion clinic that caters to women seeking abortions later in pregnancy.
It's a grey area depending on whether it's more 20 weeks or 36 weeks but if it's 32 weeks or whatever and induction was on the table then I'd call that infanticide. As I keep saying, you can terminate a healthy late term pregnancy in a way where nobody dies. If someone is deliberately opting for the dead baby route then I don't love that.
The large majority of people don't agree with "abortion at any gestation for any reason." But there's also some radicals in the left that do believe in that, even if it amounts to infanticide. The existence of those radicals is why politicians on the left have difficulty answering the question whether there should be "any" restrictions on abortion. Here's the Secretary of Health and Human Services being repeatedly asked the same question and refusing to answer
The question is "Do you believe there should be any restrictions on abortion through the 3rd trimester" He just keeps responding in "I believe in Roe v Wade" which doesn't even answer the question because Roe v Wade simply allows governments to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester, it doesn't mandate whether they do or don't. VP Harris employed the same strategy of non-answering the question in a remarkably similar fashion
When "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan asked Harris what week of pregnancy abortion access should be cut off, the vice president repeatedly said "the protections of Roe v. Wade" need to be put back in place, but did not directly answer the question.
Are they given the same script?
It's hardly a one-off question dodge for Kamala either. Another example is when she was asked if she still supported using tax dollars to pay for sex change operations for illegal immigrants in prison and her response was essentially "Trump paid for them too!" which also doesn't answer the question. Obviously an unpopular policy but also don't want to piss off progressives by denying inmates gender-affirming care, so dodge, dodge, dodge.
The hallmark of her campaign was dodging questions and deflecting back to Trump. The idea being that if she didn't give a straight answer then should could appeal to both the far left and the moderates by making them believe her answer would really be what they wanted to hear. Instead of appealing to both sides she ended up appealing to neither. But for some reason people in this thread think it's impossible to try to appeal to both sides at the same time.
The "third trimester" is not strictly defined, that's why a legal answer can't be given. The question is a trap and it's correct to refuse to answer it until the words being used are defined very precisely. Look it up, some definitions refer to the time after 18 weeks. That'd be far too early.
First of all, you can answer the question however you want. You don’t even have to use trimester in your answer and most abortion laws I’ve heard of don’t. They use gestational age in weeks. I’m paraphrasing the video. He poses the original question 10 different ways. Trimesters are not a necessary component to the question, if that’s your excuse for the non-answer.
Second of all, who is defining 18 weeks as 3rd trimester lol
Trimester isn't completely strictly defined in the sense that the start varies between week 27 and 29, but it's certainly not 18. Commonly first is ~week 1 until 12-13, second trimester is ~13 until ~27, third is ~28 until 40.
People generally consider abortion after 18 weeks very different from after 28 weeks, again, because the question of viability is pretty central. Personally, I think abortion up to 18 weeks (well before viability) is a no-brainer yes that should always be allowed at the discretion of the woman no matter the reason given because the fetus can't survive without the mother at this point (even if I also think it's probably better to do it before 12 weeks - or as early as possible - because the longer we wait the more developed the fetus is). But after weeks 21 or thereabouts, it becomes an increasingly more tricky question (as at this point, the baby might be able to survive without the mother), and I'm not happy with frivolous abortions at that stage.
That, however, doesn't necessarily translate to wanting to regulate it - because there are two different arguments in competition here. On one hand, there are the women who find out that their child to be suffers from some type of disease or problem that makes their continued existence a danger for their mother, and also that virtually ensures that their life will be short and entirely pain-filled. In those cases, that's already a deeply tragic and traumatic message to get, and I don't want to cause those mothers more pain through needing to jump through hoops, needing to cry themselves through some medical board or whatever to justify their cause when it should obviously be granted to them. I don't know what % of third trimester abortions fit that description, but it should be a significant amount.
Then there's a more difficult group - touched by oBlade - when there are issues with the fetus that indicate a more difficult life because of some handicap. I think that's a genuinely difficult ethical question, because on one hand, I'm opposed to a society where we weed out the 'weak' (different) elements. There's no question here that more permissive abortion laws and more screening of fetuses will result in more abortions - in Denmark, between 90 and 95% of parents that get their fetus tested for Down's syndome end up aborting the fetus if the test is positive. In Norway, similar numbers jumped from 50-something to 70-something % after some change to the screening process happened. Honestly, I'm thinking both Denmark and Norway are on the generous side of the spectrum in terms of how much aid is given to parents of children with special needs, but it can still be extremely exhausting. And to be frank - while I am opposed to the society which doesn't have room for children with down's syndrome (for example) - I also think it's likely that I myself would land on the side of 'would want to abort' if I learned that my fetus had down's syndrome. Consequently, while I acknowledge the difficulty of the dilemma, I also want this to be done at the discretion of the mom.
Then, presumably, there's a third group - people who have late abortions without having much of a reason other than 'mild inconvenience and I couldn't make up my mind'. I haven't met any in this group, but I mean, in a world where there are people who rent out their children to sexual predators, it's not like I'm going to claim that these people don't exist. However, unless I can be convinced otherwise, I'm inclined to think that these are so far and few between that I don't want my opposition to them dictate my policy towards the other two groups - and this is why I still favor 'let the woman choose' - at least until the start of the third trimester.
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote: [quote] Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name.
The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine.
If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem.
Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays?
That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.
A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course the doctor doesn't pull out a glock to terminate the fetus. They use an ultrasound-guided needle to go through the abdomen and injection digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus's heart.
The Atlantic did an article on an abortion provider that performs late term abortions.
Hern stopped performing first-trimester abortions a few years ago; he saw too much need for later abortions, and his clinic couldn’t do it all. The procedure he uses takes three or four days and goes like this: After performing an ultrasound, he will use a thin needle to inject a medicine called digoxin through the patient’s abdomen to stop the fetus’s heart. This is called “inducing fetal demise.” Then Hern will insert one or more laminarias—a sterile, brownish rod of seaweed—into the patient’s cervix to start the dilation process.
He also estimates that roughly half of the abortions he performs there is nothing wrong with the fetus
Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses. He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances. Many of the clinic’s teenage patients receive later abortions because they had no idea they were pregnant. Some sexual-assault victims ignore their pregnancies or feel too ashamed to see a doctor.
...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus—or its ability to survive outside the uterus—is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it.
So when you write
On November 19 2024 07:44 KwarK wrote: in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote: A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section.
To try to claim that late term abortions result in the delivery of a healthy baby are simply untrue. The physician is literally explaining clear as day how he goes about killing the fetus. There's no T-1000 terminator or glock involved, hardy har har, but it still happens. He's not talking about all the healthy babies he has delivered at his abortion clinic that caters to women seeking abortions later in pregnancy.
It's a grey area depending on whether it's more 20 weeks or 36 weeks but if it's 32 weeks or whatever and induction was on the table then I'd call that infanticide. As I keep saying, you can terminate a healthy late term pregnancy in a way where nobody dies. If someone is deliberately opting for the dead baby route then I don't love that.
The large majority of people don't agree with "abortion at any gestation for any reason." But there's also some radicals in the left that do believe in that, even if it amounts to infanticide. The existence of those radicals is why politicians on the left have difficulty answering the question whether there should be "any" restrictions on abortion. Here's the Secretary of Health and Human Services being repeatedly asked the same question and refusing to answer
The question is "Do you believe there should be any restrictions on abortion through the 3rd trimester" He just keeps responding in "I believe in Roe v Wade" which doesn't even answer the question because Roe v Wade simply allows governments to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester, it doesn't mandate whether they do or don't. VP Harris employed the same strategy of non-answering the question in a remarkably similar fashion
When "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan asked Harris what week of pregnancy abortion access should be cut off, the vice president repeatedly said "the protections of Roe v. Wade" need to be put back in place, but did not directly answer the question.
Are they given the same script?
It's hardly a one-off question dodge for Kamala either. Another example is when she was asked if she still supported using tax dollars to pay for sex change operations for illegal immigrants in prison and her response was essentially "Trump paid for them too!" which also doesn't answer the question. Obviously an unpopular policy but also don't want to piss off progressives by denying inmates gender-affirming care, so dodge, dodge, dodge.
The hallmark of her campaign was dodging questions and deflecting back to Trump. The idea being that if she didn't give a straight answer then should could appeal to both the far left and the moderates by making them believe her answer would really be what they wanted to hear. Instead of appealing to both sides she ended up appealing to neither. But for some reason people in this thread think it's impossible to try to appeal to both sides at the same time.
The "third trimester" is not strictly defined, that's why a legal answer can't be given. The question is a trap and it's correct to refuse to answer it until the words being used are defined very precisely. Look it up, some definitions refer to the time after 18 weeks. That'd be far too early.
First of all, you can answer the question however you want. You don’t even have to use trimester in your answer and most abortion laws I’ve heard of don’t. They use gestational age in weeks. I’m paraphrasing the video. He poses the original question 10 different ways. Trimesters are not a necessary component to the question, if that’s your excuse for the non-answer.
Second of all, who is defining 18 weeks as 3rd trimester lol
It's strategically important to let an antagonistic interrogator/interviewer define their own words, you should never make their job easier. Especially not Republicans who are known for twisting words whichever way they like. The definition of the third trimester is essential to the question because there's no commonly accepted definition. Same as "late-term", which is equally undefined. It's not an excuse. Never make it easy for an antagonistic person.
One of the key issues with disallowing some abortion is precisely the example of third trimester or late-term that we're having a discussion about. Legal speak has to be extremely precise to cover every instance, as loose definitions generally favor authoritarians and not the people. Republicans are happy having all types of abortion included in one word when they go campaigning, and then they argue people are batshit insane if they support all abortions because the legal definition isn't the same as the colloquial use of the word or the conservative one or the liberal one etc. Added to that is people's ignorance of words and their meanings, which further derails the political discourse. There are various different definitions people think of and that helps Republicans gain political momentum when they shouldn't.
Republicans use this strategically. They argued that people supporting abortions are batshit insane because a good portion of them is in favor of all abortions, and they used this information to get Trump into power who then caused the overturning of Roe v Wade. There was no abortion epidemic for the last few generations. However, since the new ruling there is now an oppressive murder machine going on that kills women at a previously unseen rate. Good job Republicans. No morals whatsoever, but a huge win with the small batshit insane fraction of their own voter base. In this way they got to maintain sufficient support for this year's election. All of this was fabricated by painting liberals as the batshit insane ones, even though they were the only reasonable ones regarding the abortion debate. It's a strategy to get elected, there is no morality involved in any of this.
This is why it's so important to not give Republicans a single inch. They have to put their blood and sweat into every single bit of political ground they try to gain, so it's time for Democrats to fight harder than ever until the sweat pours out of Republicans like they're in the boxing match of a lifetime. Every. Single. Day. They have to be made to curse their own words for using them so loosely. They have to be forced to explain and justify themselves at every single occasion.
To the people who said project 2025 was not an issue and not related to Trump and blah blah. Does Trump naming the guy who wrote the chapter in project 2025 on the FCC getting named to run the FCC give you any pause?
On November 20 2024 01:33 Billyboy wrote: To the people who said project 2025 was not an issue and not related to Trump and blah blah. Does Trump naming the guy who wrote the chapter in project 2025 on the FCC getting named to run the FCC give you any pause?
There's no getting through to people who saw "We are the Republicans and this is our step-by-step plan to sabotage our federal government and strip citizens of their rights, pinky promise. Signed - Republicans" and who heard Trump laud the Republicans for their thorough and easy-to-follow plans, and thought to themselves "surely they don't mean it", even as they continue to shout from the rooftops that they really meant what they said and that they really mean to do as much of their agenda as they can.
At some point between open-minded and the above, the person in question has already become a right-wing apologist.
On November 20 2024 01:33 Billyboy wrote: To the people who said project 2025 was not an issue and not related to Trump and blah blah. Does Trump naming the guy who wrote the chapter in project 2025 on the FCC getting named to run the FCC give you any pause?
Those people were saying that because it was the run up to the election. It isn't any more, so it isn't something they have to worry about justifying.
On November 20 2024 01:33 Billyboy wrote: To the people who said project 2025 was not an issue and not related to Trump and blah blah. Does Trump naming the guy who wrote the chapter in project 2025 on the FCC getting named to run the FCC give you any pause?
On November 20 2024 01:33 Billyboy wrote: To the people who said project 2025 was not an issue and not related to Trump and blah blah. Does Trump naming the guy who wrote the chapter in project 2025 on the FCC getting named to run the FCC give you any pause?
Appointing a commissioner of the FCC to chair the FCC?
Stuff like this is literal fascism, I'm shaking at the idea, can't believe I've been hoodwinked like this. Should have known sooner or later he'd appoint someone with the exact most uncontroversial boring resume needed.
EPT
