lol. I think most women are smart enough to know what the “gift” is. Seriously?
Abortion Ruling
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
I agree that most laws have some moral base. But that is not a complete answer to the conundrum of when/if a law has an IMPERMISSIBLE religious basis. Speed limits are different than health care are different than grazing on federal land, etc. The reality is that abortion law has a higher “religion” and/or “morality” component factor than swimming laws. Those factors must be considered when making legal decisions that must apply to all - religious/non-religious and moral/willingly immoral. “The rain falls on the priest and the thief, but you need probable cause or consent to search either one.”
Well, brain scans there won’t be helpful … or fair!
I don’t consider abortion to have any higher religious component than thou shall not murder. It’s why 80% of Americans agree with me that abortion is murder and are against it at some point. Almost all of us recognize it’s evil and wrong.
0-15 weeks - not murder
16-21 weeks - not murder and we need this time to ensure we identify any potential life threatening problems
22-30 weeks - i don't feel so good and there better be a really good reason
31-39 weeks - how did we get to this point and not know earlier?
80% don't agree it's murder before week 21. I'll need a poll or some other data to point that out before I believe it.
Aloha posted an article above. 79% of them were against abortions in the third trimester.
It is far more nuanced.
First, I know folks who will tell you that you are going to hell for phrasing that commandment as “thou shall not murder“ rather than “thou shall not kill.“ Others will tell you that wearing a condom will send you to hell. Others will say wearing a condom will only send you to hell if you don’t confess and say the right number of “Hail Mary’s.” As of today, some Baptist churches won’t allow a women in the pulpit. Others will. As of today, some United Methodist churches will perform gay weddings. Global
Methodist churches won’t. Even religion has meaningful nuance.
Next, Jack the Ripper and a drug cartel hit man and a soldier and a pregnant woman who aborts an anencephalytic fetus are not the same. But under a “ ‘thou shall not murder’ makes abortion murder” rule, they all would be “murderers.”
Abortion is not always just a callous form of birth control. Neither a church nor the law should treat them all the same.
Yeah I've heard this line before. It's the same as the "pro-birth" malarkey. The abortion issue is not an opportunity to demand everything on your progressive wish list.
Besides, if Republicans caved and offered free childcare and free health care for any pregnant woman and her family, Democrats still wouldn't accept a full abortion ban any way. Moot point.
So you want to guilt trip rape and incest victims? Or are they excluded?
Why should they feel guilt? It's just a medical procedure, like removing a cyst as I've been told.
I disagree it’s nuanced or difficult. Make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. The other 99% of abortions are illegal. We’re just not going to agree on the issue.
Last edited:
So a woman must carry an anencephalytic baby to term, knowing it will be be stillborn or die in minutes? No exceptions for THAT? Or is that within “health of the mother”?
Asking for a relative who went through it, so please answer.
I haven’t been unreasonable and replied in good faith. If you can’t figure out my answer to that question, you’re wasting my time.
@IU_Hickory why the laughing emoji in response to someone who has heartfelt personal beliefs about aborting a baby?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Because I think his 80% figure is bogus and saying almost all see it as evil and wrong is laughable.
No one roots for an abortion and sure most would probably agree with none in 3rd trimester except for specific circumstances, like life of the mother at stake. But saying all think abortion is evil is crazy.
So now we're calling out posters for emojis?
That amounts to probably fewer than 1/1000 abortions.
I've never understood why women get pregnant when they aren't wanting to. I've taken a multi vitamin everyday for about 10 years now. I don't think there has been 1 day when I forgot to take it. We even have plan B pills now too as a backup.
I am ASKING in good faith. Every post I have made in this thread has been in good faith. I am try to show how difficult some of these lines are to legally draw. This one is the toughest.
You not wanting to answer makes me suspect you would make a woman carry such a baby until vaginal birth. Please tell me if I am wrong.
This nation (or states) can never resolve this issue if we don’t address the hardest questions.
Ideological purists (of all stripes) always paint themselves into a corner and then refuse to acknowledge the real world consequences of their positions. "Compromise" is a dirty word, donchya know.
We see this playing out in Texas, women that seemingly should qualify because doctors are afraid to lose their license/fines/jail. No matter how sure one is there is an expert willing to testify against them. Until there is solid case law, no one knows how much risk is needed for "life of the mother". 100% risk, 90, 70, 30? Without case law, I don't blame doctors for being afraid.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I think laughing implies my thoughts perfectly and doubt my disagreement is going to sway his mind anyway. I don't care to waste time in the argument.
And plenty of posters laugh at my posts, including you
The only way we'll ever get case law is for some doctor to perform the procedure and then have him get prosecuted.
Yep.
Imagine interstate speed limits listed as "a safe speed". The difference is that there will be a lot of prosecutors wanting to make a name for themselves keeping that as close to 100% risk as possible.
You sure? This would be a criminal violation rather than a civil claim, wouldn't it?
Irrelevant. They arent going to be doing anything that runs afoul of or jeopardizes coverage
Generally
How would performing a medically necessary abortion run afoul of malpractice coverage?
I didn’t want to answer because you’re treating me like an ass. No, they shouldn’t have to carry it full term.
@UncleMark most states mandate 1mil/3mil malpractice coverage for abortions. You perform one in a state that bans you’re running the risk of nullifying coverage. You then F it up your ass is out if you’re the Dr. So it’s more than just a prosecution concern
You can make that argument. People make similar cases for rape and incest as well. I’m ok with allowing exceptions in all those situations. I only want the other 99% of abortions outlawed. I have no issues with making exceptions.
