US Politics Thread 2021-24

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

You forgot the possibility of aliens and immaculate conception. There is absolutely no law barring a female victim of rape or incest from seeking help. Being afraid, for whatever reason, is not IMO an abortion rights issue. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. The damage done in the above circumstances are much more complicated and harder to fix than just making a trip to the abortion clinic.

The new law basically empowers citizens, not the State, to sue abortion care providers should they abort a fetus after the 6th week. But the kicker is that the new law states that a man wether an alien, divine, relative or rapist who impregnates a woman through rape or incest cannot file a lawsuit. Seems to me then in such cases allowances will be made and should the victim desire an abortion after the 6th week no one can sue the abortion provider. That’s my take.

Yep. The pro-abortion activists conveniently ignore that fact. That they're prattling on about abortion is now illegal without the " after detecting a fetal heartbeat" part is them assuming that all of the low-information people who never read past the headlines will now give them donations and support.

I just don't get the veracity with which they insist that abortion should be only a woman's choice to get whenever, whatever, wherever. Some of these activists even advocate killing them after a live birth. I'm sure there were no pro-abortion activists, for example, crusading to put someone like Dr. Kermit Gosnell out of business, despite his "snipping" the spinal cords of late 3rd trimester viable babies, as he took advantage of desperate illegal immigrants and the poor.

This is the stuff that pro-abortion activists want to brush under the carpet:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/5...t-want-to-read

The problem isn't abortion. The problem is how planned parenthood and other abortion activists lobby to make abortion less regulated than liposuction because of the profit motive to supply dead babies for research.

Our own experience shows this bizarre focus on killing babies. My wife was pregnant with our first child and we decided to get genetic testing due to her age. The results came back for a higher risk of Trisomy-18, so her OB/GYN had us come in for genetic counseling followed by an amniocentesis to confirm viability. The first thing the counselor said was that we were past the gestational time for what is legal in our state, but we could go to another state to get an abortion and she rattled off those states by rote. She couldn't tell us what the increased risk was, though.

It wasn't until I specifically asked the doctor "what is the normal risk and what is our increased risk." Our increased risk was a 6% chance of Trisomy-18. Six percent?!?!? Well take our chances. Now, that "you should have an abortion" baby is an annoying teenage scholar-athlete who eats us out of house and home...

[Rockstar]

Speaking of profit motive I read a little and it seems the people who took the case before the Supreme Court were the abortion providers. Seems the Texas law is going to cut into their profit margin and they didn’t like it. As for arguements it’s the same old usin’ agin themins’ extremist what if party politics.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Speaking of profit motive I read a little and it seems the people who took the case before the Supreme Court were the abortion providers. Seems the Texas law is going to cut into their profit margin and they didn’t like it. As for arguements it’s the same old usin’ agin themins’ extremist what if party politics.

That's a different problem - money and politics shouldn't coexist in a quid pro quo. No lobbyists, no industry trade groups, no PACs, no donations allowed by anyone other than individuals. Eliminate the temptation here in front of politicians, and you eliminate the chicanery that results. House of Cards is fiction, but it's closer to reality than not.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Some of these activists even advocate killing them after a live birth.

The only people I ever see claiming that are the anti-choice crowd.

[mapuc]

Another reason to why I stay neutral in this thread is because my knowledge in how law is made on state(like Texas) level is almost none existent.

I know mostly how law is made in Washington DC.

What I know is in both cases the law does not count before the president or a governor sign the bill.

They can also refuse to sign it.

I guess in both cases the law makes another round to make changes or remove it.

Markus

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Arlo

The only people I ever see claiming that are the anti-choice crowd.

As per usual, you're incorrect.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/13/these-...posed-to-mean/

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

As per usual, you're incorrect.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/13/these-...posed-to-mean/

'After a live birth' and 'viable fetus' are actually not the same thing. But then, I gave up long ago on your ability to differentiate. So, again, what you claim is pearl-clutching hyperbole. (per usual)

[mapuc]

It has been debated a lot in our countries Denmark and Sweden.

When does a festus become a human-When the first heartbeat comes or the first signal occur between two points in the brain ?

This discussion came because the politicians wanted to change when a woman could have an abortion-here the limit is 12 week. This can be expand to 16 week if there's a risc for the woman.

Markus

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Arlo

'After a live birth' and 'viable fetus' are actually not the same thing. But then, I gave up long ago on your ability to differentiate. So, again, what you claim is pearl-clutching hyperbole. (per usual)

I'm guessing you didn't even bother reading the article. That's ok, I don't expect low-information people to put in the work.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It has been debated a lot in our countries Denmark and Sweden.

When does a festus become a human-When the first heartbeat comes or the first signal occur between two points in the brain ?

This discussion came because the politicians wanted to change when a woman could have an abortion-here the limit is 12 week. This can be expand to 16 week if there's a risc for the woman.

Markus

Wai-wai-wait...

You mean to tell me that liberal European democracies have stricter abortion laws than most states in the US!?!

Don't let the pro-abortion activists find out, it'll make them spontaneously combust...

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Wai-wai-wait...

You mean to tell me that liberal European democracies have stricter abortion laws than most states in the US!?!

Don't let the pro-abortion activists find out, it'll make them spontaneously combust...

Correction
From a Danish page about abortion

The abortion limit in Denmark is 12 weeks. This means that you have the right to have a medical or surgical abortion if you are no longer pregnant than 12 weeks. After that time, it requires special permission to terminate the pregnancy.

If you are in a situation where you want an abortion, but are longer than 12 weeks, you must apply to the Abortion Council for permission. You can do this until the end of the 22nd week of pregnancy. An approval of the abortion requires that the three professionals in the consultation assess that there are significant reasons to terminate the pregnancy. For example, it could be that:

Your physical or mental health is at risk due to pregnancy or childbirth or in relation to having to be responsible for a child

The child is at risk of developing a serious physical or mental illness

Rape, incest or any other criminal act is to blame for the pregnancy

It is assessed that you will not be able to care for the child

Markus

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I'm guessing you didn't even bother reading the article. That's ok, I don't expect low-information people to put in the work.

You 'guess' a lot. Did you?

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Correction
From a Danish page about abortion

The abortion limit in Denmark is 12 weeks. This means that you have the right to have a medical or surgical abortion if you are no longer pregnant than 12 weeks. After that time, it requires special permission to terminate the pregnancy.

If you are in a situation where you want an abortion, but are longer than 12 weeks, you must apply to the Abortion Council for permission. You can do this until the end of the 22nd week of pregnancy. An approval of the abortion requires that the three professionals in the consultation assess that there are significant reasons to terminate the pregnancy. For example, it could be that:

Your physical or mental health is at risk due to pregnancy or childbirth or in relation to having to be responsible for a child

The child is at risk of developing a serious physical or mental illness

Rape, incest or any other criminal act is to blame for the pregnancy

It is assessed that you will not be able to care for the child

Markus

So let me get this straight... It's not just the woman's choice?!?! I'm shocked.

[mapuc]

^ Up to the 12th week any woman who's pregnant can chose to take an abortion and no question asked, after that it's up to this Abortion Council to either approve a woman's wish or reject her wish for an abortion.

I understand it's kind of different when it comes to your country, USA each state has their own abortion law.

Markus

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

As per usual, you're incorrect.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/13/these-...posed-to-mean/

Using the New York Post as a source? Cute.

Is it an opinion piece? Well, I'm not giving the Post a click to find out, but if so, doubly cute.