TRUMP 2024

706,700 Views | 7853 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Werewolf
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did Judge Cannon just do Trump a favor by not dismissing the documents case?

On Thursday, Cannon ruled against a motion requesting dismissal arguing that he was allowed to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a notion the DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's team dismissed as "pure fiction." In denying the motion, Cannon did leave open the possibility that the argument could be raised at a later date in the case.

If she had dismissed the case then Smith could have appealed her ruling. Remember Cannon asked both sides to submit jury instructions before even the jury has been seated. By not dismissing and carefully crafting the jury instructions the case continues, Trump is found innocent and Smith can't appeal due to double jeopardy.

Smith's only course of action to avoid this is to push for Cannon to recuse herself. Something I don't see her doing.
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barelypure said:

Did Judge Cannon just do Trump a favor by not dismissing the documents case?

On Thursday, Cannon ruled against a motion requesting dismissal arguing that he was allowed to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a notion the DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's team dismissed as "pure fiction." In denying the motion, Cannon did leave open the possibility that the argument could be raised at a later date in the case.

If she had dismissed the case then Smith could have appealed her ruling. Remember Cannon asked both sides to submit jury instructions before even the jury has been seated. By not dismissing and carefully crafting the jury instructions the case continues, Trump is found innocent and Smith can't appeal due to double jeopardy.

Smith's only course of action to avoid this is to push for Cannon to recuse herself. Something I don't see her doing.

And what grounds for recusal are there?
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

barelypure said:

Did Judge Cannon just do Trump a favor by not dismissing the documents case?

On Thursday, Cannon ruled against a motion requesting dismissal arguing that he was allowed to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a notion the DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's team dismissed as "pure fiction." In denying the motion, Cannon did leave open the possibility that the argument could be raised at a later date in the case.

If she had dismissed the case then Smith could have appealed her ruling. Remember Cannon asked both sides to submit jury instructions before even the jury has been seated. By not dismissing and carefully crafting the jury instructions the case continues, Trump is found innocent and Smith can't appeal due to double jeopardy.

Smith's only course of action to avoid this is to push for Cannon to recuse herself. Something I don't see her doing.

And what grounds for recusal are there?
That Cannon is a Trump appointee and thus MAGA. Never mind that she was assigned the case on the basis of next in rotation and not specifically chosen because she was a Trump toady
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barelypure said:

Oldsouljer said:

barelypure said:

Did Judge Cannon just do Trump a favor by not dismissing the documents case?

On Thursday, Cannon ruled against a motion requesting dismissal arguing that he was allowed to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a notion the DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's team dismissed as "pure fiction." In denying the motion, Cannon did leave open the possibility that the argument could be raised at a later date in the case.

If she had dismissed the case then Smith could have appealed her ruling. Remember Cannon asked both sides to submit jury instructions before even the jury has been seated. By not dismissing and carefully crafting the jury instructions the case continues, Trump is found innocent and Smith can't appeal due to double jeopardy.

Smith's only course of action to avoid this is to push for Cannon to recuse herself. Something I don't see her doing.

And what grounds for recusal are there?
That Cannon is a Trump appointee and thus MAGA. Never mind that she was assigned the case on the basis of next in rotation and not specifically chosen because she was a Trump toady
That can't be right….

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," (Chief Justice John) Roberts said in a statement distributed by the Supreme Court."

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've wondered if it would come to this for quite some time. ;-)

#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ever hear of this guy named Jacob Schiff. I've wondered if Pencil-Neck was maybe a gr-grandson or such.


#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump put out his stance on abortion. He gave his personal stance, at the same time, he said the issue was a States issues, legally.

That, I support 100%.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg/index.html

List of states where abortion is banned. Most of them "Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest."

Me, I'm Pro-Choice and that choice is life. For rape and incest I can see where abortions would be necessary in the 1st trimester. But with the caveat that there needs to be a police report and someone charged if they are identified. After the 1st trimester I'm not sold that it hasn't become elective.

For the 3rd trimester I don't see a good reason to have an abortion unless the life of the baby is in danger. As to the life of the mother, just deliver the baby and she's good.

It's that 2nd trimester I'm conflicted. If they reach the 24th week then deliver the baby and give it the care it needs. There's been a few successes of babies as young as 22 weeks but not many. That's So after the 1st trimester up to the 24th week if the mother's life is in danger then I can see abortion being the only option.

As to the abortion drugs, if they are the day after pill then I don't object. I'm not sold on the idea that because an egg has split it's now a human.

If the woman says she wants an abortion because the babies eyes are brown and she wants one with blue eyes, well I'd lock her away as she's obviously demented.

In short, abortion is complicated. There's no 1 good answer.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump will lead us out of this abyss.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, they should be more than concerned.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Wufskins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barelypure said:

https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg/index.html

List of states where abortion is banned. Most of them "Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest."

Me, I'm Pro-Choice and that choice is life. For rape and incest I can see where abortions would be necessary in the 1st trimester. But with the caveat that there needs to be a police report and someone charged if they are identified. After the 1st trimester I'm not sold that it hasn't become elective.

For the 3rd trimester I don't see a good reason to have an abortion unless the life of the baby is in danger. As to the life of the mother, just deliver the baby and she's good.

It's that 2nd trimester I'm conflicted. If they reach the 24th week then deliver the baby and give it the care it needs. There's been a few successes of babies as young as 22 weeks but not many. That's So after the 1st trimester up to the 24th week if the mother's life is in danger then I can see abortion being the only option.

As to the abortion drugs, if they are the day after pill then I don't object. I'm not sold on the idea that because an egg has split it's now a human.

If the woman says she wants an abortion because the babies eyes are brown and she wants one with blue eyes, well I'd lock her away as she's obviously demented.

In short, abortion is complicated. There's no 1 good answer.



Can you expound on this part?
For the 3rd trimester I don't see a good reason to have an abortion unless the life of the baby is in danger. As to the life of the mother, just deliver the baby and she's good.

You won't respond, but I do hope you read this woman's story.

The swelling was the first sign that something was wrong. It showed up in her hands and feet. She struggled to squeeze into shoes.

Susan flipped open her "What to Expect When You're Expecting" book and turned to the section that outlined when to call a doctor. Her kind of swelling and sudden weight gain she'd put on 11 pounds in one week made the list. She asked her husband of just over a year, a physician, whether he thought she looked OK. He sweetly told her she was beautiful, first thinking she was self-conscious and worried that she was fat.

He wasn't an ob-gyn, so she called hers.

"Have your husband take your blood pressure, just when he's able to," the doctor advised.

On their way to dinner in Berkeley, California, that evening, he suggested that they swing by his office first.

Her blood pressure "was off the charts," Susan remembers 30 years later. Her husband dialed the obstetrician, who asked whether he had any urine testing strips handy. He did, and they showed that Susan's protein levels were dangerously high, indicating a problem with her kidneys.

"Get over to the hospital right away," the obstetrician ordered.

Susan at first balked. She felt fine, just swollen. Plus, she was hungry.

"Can't we go to dinner first?" she asked before being rushed out the door.

She stayed in denial for as long as she could. Doctors were alarmed about her blood pressure, but she wasn't. They said her kidneys were shutting down, but that didn't register. Instead, she focused on the ultrasound they took, which revealed the baby's gender. She looked with excitement at her husband.

"Oh, my goodness, we're going to have a boy!" she said. "Aren't you happy?"

His face was grim, she remembered. "He knew that this was not looking good at all."

She was at 24 weeks and had severe preeclampsia. Doctors said she was on the verge of having a stroke.

"It's like you're being poisoned by pregnancy," she said, explaining her condition, "And the only way to cure it is to not be pregnant."

The fetus was behind in its development and not where it should be at 24 weeks.

It "needs at least two weeks to be even minimally viable, and you just don't have two weeks," the doctors told her. "You don't have two days."

Still, she tried to negotiate a deal. She was a physical therapist. She could rehab herself after a stroke, she told them. She could rehab their baby. She wanted to deliver it, if not vaginally, then by C-section. They said her body could not withstand either.

They promised her the fetus would feel no pain before stopping its heartbeat. Then they put Susan under to perform the dilation and evacuation procedure, in which the cervix is dilated and the contents of the uterus extracted.

Her abortion was a necessity and felt like "such a no-choice choice," said Susan, 59, who later had two daughters.

It wasn't what she wanted. It was what she needed to live.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.html
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In what capacity will he serve in the new administration?

#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.



caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.
Civ, isn't this true (1st bolded) for any procedure. Malpractice insurance is an expensive line item on a Doctor/practice budget, right?

I know we are talking about elective procedures; however, this is the case regardless.

Also, (2nd bolded), this certainly looks like an admission that the baby has bodily autonomy the way you wrote that…. Thoughts?
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.




The problem as I see it is the timeline. If an abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother before 24 weeks then that should be allowed. After 24 weeks you deliver the child and give palliative care.

I'm not sure what you mean by her health will be reasonably harmed. Is there discomfort, sure. Do they sometimes feel unwell, of course. None of that harms their health. Will their hoo-hoo be stretched so their man doesn't have that tightness to enjoy, well there's exercises to tighten it up some.

If it's a fatal fetal anomalies then of course removing the dead tissue should be allowed. As to birth defects, there you're needing a better definition. Some defects the person is able to have a meaningful life. Others maybe not so much. For example, would you have aborted the 2 headed woman that recently got married. They seem to be doing fine otherwise.
Wufskins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Figured you wouldn't address my specific example of why abortion is necessary in the third trimester to save the life of the mother. Baby wasn't viable at 24 weeks and waiting two weeks would likely lead to the mother having a stoke. But sure, she should have to live with the consequences of that stoke (should she even survive).
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.
Civ, isn't this true (1st bolded) for any procedure. Malpractice insurance is an expensive line item on a Doctor/practice budget, right?

I know we are talking about elective procedures; however, this is the case regardless.

Also, (2nd bolded), this certainly looks like an admission that the baby has bodily autonomy the way you wrote that…. Thoughts?

The market is telling us that there aren't adequate protections in place. It's why providers in states like Texas are refusing to perform medically necessary procedures if they feel like there's any chance they could be charged criminally for doing so. If they felt protected they wouldn't be refusing to do procedures. The law is too nebulous and/or there aren't adequate protections in place.

I don't see how what I posted in the second part relates to an admission of "bodily autonomy". It's a simple acknowledgment that the heartbeat is used by many as a benchmark of autonomy/life/whatever you want to call it. Whether it should be the benchmark is debatable.

My point is that I don't care if a baby's heart is beating if that heart has developed outside its chest cavity and there is no chance the baby will survive outside the womb. In circumstances like that the woman should have full discretion to terminate the pregnancy whether that heart is beating or not. There is no defensible reason to make her carry that baby any longer than she wants to, whether or not her health is in jeopardy.

Hundreds/some small-thousands number of women are in this heartbreaking situation every year around the country so this isn't a trivial problem to legislate.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barelypure said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.




The problem as I see it is the timeline. If an abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother before 24 weeks then that should be allowed. After 24 weeks you deliver the child and give palliative care.

I'm not sure what you mean by her health will be reasonably harmed. Is there discomfort, sure. Do they sometimes feel unwell, of course. None of that harms their health. Will their hoo-hoo be stretched so their man doesn't have that tightness to enjoy, well there's exercises to tighten it up some.

If it's a fatal fetal anomalies then of course removing the dead tissue should be allowed. As to birth defects, there you're needing a better definition. Some defects the person is able to have a meaningful life. Others maybe not so much. For example, would you have aborted the 2 headed woman that recently got married. They seem to be doing fine otherwise.

What if the baby has a birth defect that will certainly kill it once it's born?

Why is it somehow superior to draw out the mother's emotional pain at some physical risk, so that the baby can die outside the womb rather than in it?

Regarding the mother's health reasonably being harmed, the standard can't simply be "the mother will definitely die if she continues carrying this baby, so we need to abort."

For instance, there may be a complication that results in a 100x greater likelihood of maternal death. In absolute numbers, the risk is still fairly small (3% chance, up from 30 in 100,000) but in relative numbers it's far in excess of a typical birth.

If there's a markerdly heightened chance of death or even serious health complications, the mother should be able to decide what she wants for her own body.
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

barelypure said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.




The problem as I see it is the timeline. If an abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother before 24 weeks then that should be allowed. After 24 weeks you deliver the child and give palliative care.

I'm not sure what you mean by her health will be reasonably harmed. Is there discomfort, sure. Do they sometimes feel unwell, of course. None of that harms their health. Will their hoo-hoo be stretched so their man doesn't have that tightness to enjoy, well there's exercises to tighten it up some.

If it's a fatal fetal anomalies then of course removing the dead tissue should be allowed. As to birth defects, there you're needing a better definition. Some defects the person is able to have a meaningful life. Others maybe not so much. For example, would you have aborted the 2 headed woman that recently got married. They seem to be doing fine otherwise.

What if the baby has a birth defect that will certainly kill it once it's born?

Why is it somehow superior to draw out the mother's emotional pain at some physical risk, so that the baby can die outside the womb rather than in it?

Regarding the mother's health reasonably being harmed, the standard can't simply be "the mother will definitely die if she continues carrying this baby, so we need to abort."

For instance, there may be a complication that results in a 100x greater likelihood of maternal death. In absolute numbers, the risk is still fairly small (3% chance, up from 30 in 100,000) but in relative numbers it's far in excess of a typical birth.

If there's a markerdly heightened chance of death or even serious health complications, the mother should be able to decide what she wants for her own body.
See you're trying to split hairs. Not all birth defects lead to death. Emotional pain, sounds like a cop out to push abortions.

As to maternal death I addressed that. You must have missed it. Here let me state it simpler so you can understand. Before 24 weeks, abort. 24 weeks or greater, deliver the babe.

Also, she made the decision to bring another life into this world so it's not just her own body but that of another as well.
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought we already had an abortion thread on this board? How about posting all this back and forth on that thread instead of turning every single thread on this board into just "more of the same"...
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheStorm said:

I thought we already had an abortion thread on this board? How about posting all this back and forth on that thread instead of turning every single thread on this board into just "more of the same"...

'Trump 2024' is a perfectly reasonable place to discuss a huge issue in this election. Sorry, I bet you were hoping this would just be the 'immigration' thread? Oh wait, or is it Biden's that's the immigration thread?
Wufskins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barelypure said:

Civilized said:

barelypure said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.




The problem as I see it is the timeline. If an abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother before 24 weeks then that should be allowed. After 24 weeks you deliver the child and give palliative care.

I'm not sure what you mean by her health will be reasonably harmed. Is there discomfort, sure. Do they sometimes feel unwell, of course. None of that harms their health. Will their hoo-hoo be stretched so their man doesn't have that tightness to enjoy, well there's exercises to tighten it up some.

If it's a fatal fetal anomalies then of course removing the dead tissue should be allowed. As to birth defects, there you're needing a better definition. Some defects the person is able to have a meaningful life. Others maybe not so much. For example, would you have aborted the 2 headed woman that recently got married. They seem to be doing fine otherwise.

What if the baby has a birth defect that will certainly kill it once it's born?

Why is it somehow superior to draw out the mother's emotional pain at some physical risk, so that the baby can die outside the womb rather than in it?

Regarding the mother's health reasonably being harmed, the standard can't simply be "the mother will definitely die if she continues carrying this baby, so we need to abort."

For instance, there may be a complication that results in a 100x greater likelihood of maternal death. In absolute numbers, the risk is still fairly small (3% chance, up from 30 in 100,000) but in relative numbers it's far in excess of a typical birth.

If there's a markerdly heightened chance of death or even serious health complications, the mother should be able to decide what she wants for her own body.
See you're trying to split hairs. Not all birth defects lead to death. Emotional pain, sounds like a cop out to push abortions.

As to maternal death I addressed that. You must have missed it. Here let me state it simpler so you can understand. Before 24 weeks, abort. 24 weeks or greater, deliver the babe.

Also, she made the decision to bring another life into this world so it's not just her own body but that of another as well.


Wrt to 24 weeks, it isn't that cut and dried for every pregnancy. I pointed out one such example that you refuse to comment/consider.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wufskins said:

barelypure said:

Civilized said:

barelypure said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.




The problem as I see it is the timeline. If an abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother before 24 weeks then that should be allowed. After 24 weeks you deliver the child and give palliative care.

I'm not sure what you mean by her health will be reasonably harmed. Is there discomfort, sure. Do they sometimes feel unwell, of course. None of that harms their health. Will their hoo-hoo be stretched so their man doesn't have that tightness to enjoy, well there's exercises to tighten it up some.

If it's a fatal fetal anomalies then of course removing the dead tissue should be allowed. As to birth defects, there you're needing a better definition. Some defects the person is able to have a meaningful life. Others maybe not so much. For example, would you have aborted the 2 headed woman that recently got married. They seem to be doing fine otherwise.

What if the baby has a birth defect that will certainly kill it once it's born?

Why is it somehow superior to draw out the mother's emotional pain at some physical risk, so that the baby can die outside the womb rather than in it?

Regarding the mother's health reasonably being harmed, the standard can't simply be "the mother will definitely die if she continues carrying this baby, so we need to abort."

For instance, there may be a complication that results in a 100x greater likelihood of maternal death. In absolute numbers, the risk is still fairly small (3% chance, up from 30 in 100,000) but in relative numbers it's far in excess of a typical birth.

If there's a markerdly heightened chance of death or even serious health complications, the mother should be able to decide what she wants for her own body.
See you're trying to split hairs. Not all birth defects lead to death. Emotional pain, sounds like a cop out to push abortions.

As to maternal death I addressed that. You must have missed it. Here let me state it simpler so you can understand. Before 24 weeks, abort. 24 weeks or greater, deliver the babe.

Also, she made the decision to bring another life into this world so it's not just her own body but that of another as well.


Wrt to 24 weeks, it isn't that cut and dried for every pregnancy. I pointed out one such example that you refuse to comment/consider.

There are thousands of scenarios that his simple-minded ideas don't consider. It's a very complicated and high stakes issue for women, and the idea that allegedly "small government" conservatives have pushed for the absolutely worst type of bureaucratic control over the most profoundly personal and heart-wrenching decisions in life in order to enforce their beliefs is pathological.
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SmaptyWolf said:

Wufskins said:

barelypure said:

Civilized said:

barelypure said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

Civilized said:

Detach for a second the issues of 'elective' vs. 'medically necessary' abortions.

States should be able to potentially make law that would require a women needing an abortion for medical reasons to go to another state to receive necessary medical care?
Which state has banned medically necessary abortions?

I'll tell you. NONE.

You lefties just want to pose hypotheticals to drum up fear. That and "-isms" is all you have to run on.

Plenty of stories about women in the ~15 states with trigger bans having to cross state lines.

Providers refusing to provide medically necessary abortions post-Dobbs because they are not adequately protected from prosecution by the state they practice in has the same effect as a total ban.

Providers need to be explicitly and fully protected in order for the medical marketplace to work. Otherwise providers will err on the side of shielding themselves from criminal and civil liablity and stop performing abortions in most or all cases.

No state should be able to ban abortions when they're medically necessary. This does not mean solely perform an abortion, "or the mother will die." There must be exceptions in the event her health will be reasonably harmed, and also exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies.

No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even though it has a heartbeat when there are birth defects especially those that will prevent the fetus from surviving.




The problem as I see it is the timeline. If an abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother before 24 weeks then that should be allowed. After 24 weeks you deliver the child and give palliative care.

I'm not sure what you mean by her health will be reasonably harmed. Is there discomfort, sure. Do they sometimes feel unwell, of course. None of that harms their health. Will their hoo-hoo be stretched so their man doesn't have that tightness to enjoy, well there's exercises to tighten it up some.

If it's a fatal fetal anomalies then of course removing the dead tissue should be allowed. As to birth defects, there you're needing a better definition. Some defects the person is able to have a meaningful life. Others maybe not so much. For example, would you have aborted the 2 headed woman that recently got married. They seem to be doing fine otherwise.

What if the baby has a birth defect that will certainly kill it once it's born?

Why is it somehow superior to draw out the mother's emotional pain at some physical risk, so that the baby can die outside the womb rather than in it?

Regarding the mother's health reasonably being harmed, the standard can't simply be "the mother will definitely die if she continues carrying this baby, so we need to abort."

For instance, there may be a complication that results in a 100x greater likelihood of maternal death. In absolute numbers, the risk is still fairly small (3% chance, up from 30 in 100,000) but in relative numbers it's far in excess of a typical birth.

If there's a markerdly heightened chance of death or even serious health complications, the mother should be able to decide what she wants for her own body.
See you're trying to split hairs. Not all birth defects lead to death. Emotional pain, sounds like a cop out to push abortions.

As to maternal death I addressed that. You must have missed it. Here let me state it simpler so you can understand. Before 24 weeks, abort. 24 weeks or greater, deliver the babe.

Also, she made the decision to bring another life into this world so it's not just her own body but that of another as well.


Wrt to 24 weeks, it isn't that cut and dried for every pregnancy. I pointed out one such example that you refuse to comment/consider.

There are thousands of scenarios that his simple-minded ideas don't consider. It's a very complicated and high stakes issue for women, and the idea that allegedly "small government" conservatives have pushed for the absolutely worst type of bureaucratic control over the most profoundly personal and heart-wrenching decisions in life in order to enforce their beliefs is pathological.
Thousands of scenarios, sounds like you're in favor of no restrictions. Abortions on demand even after birth. I don't see many reasonable people going for that extreme. Tho in truth there is a certain dudette that might be a candidate for abortion even after 40 some years...
Wufskins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Poor guy can't even quote me when talking *****
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would like give my belief on this subject.

God is the creator of all things, including pregnancy. I personally believe that a child, regardless of how it was conceived is precious. Rape, Incest, etc.. as bad as they are, a person is playing God when they take the life of an innocent unborn child. Why? its Gods creation...

Now, I'm confident only a few will agree with my belief. So, for that matter, my voice is only one voice and another persons voice is only one voice. The States, with the voices, of its citizenry, should make and pass laws that best represent those people. I believe that the constitution plainly states this is a States rights issue.

All the if's, then's, and what about's are all things that can be negotiated at a State level. If you take a look at Trumps video, on this issue, he received significant blowback, from both parties, on this issue. Democrats say he wants to take away more rights, from women. Republicans think he alienated pro-lifers on the issue.

Because of his position, he received blowback. That, from my perspective, probably set the correct balance.
barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I mostly agree with the NC law and think it strikes a good balance.
  • Abortion will be banned after 12 weeks of pregnancy except in limited circumstances. The limit used to be 20 weeks.
  • Exceptions include rape, incest, a life-limiting fetal anomaly, and a medical emergency that threatens the mother's life.
  • The law also increases punishments for domestic violence, assaults on pregnant women and sex offenders.

According to data from the state Department of Health and Human Services, of 27,305 North Carolina abortions in 2021, almost 71% were performed by the end of the eighth week and nearly 90% were performed by the end of the 12th week.

About 6.6% of abortions were from the 13th to 20th weeks. Fewer than 0.3% were later than 20 weeks (the old law allowed abortions after 20 weeks if the pregnancy threatened the mother's life). The gestation time of about 3.3% of the pregnancies was unknown.

The new law has several exceptions to the 12-week limit:
  • In a medical emergency in which the pregnancy threatens the woman's life or threatens to cause irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.
  • Abortion is legal through the 20th week if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
  • It is legal through the 24th week if the fetus has a life-limiting anomaly.

Some other abortion restrictions and rules:
  • Doctors may prescribe or provide abortion-inducing medicines only if the pregnancy is in its first 10 weeks of gestation. After 10 weeks, the patient would have to get a surgical abortion.
  • At least 72 hours prior to the abortion, an ultrasound of the fetus is to be conducted. The ultrasound image is to be presented to the woman so she can either see it in real time or hear the fetal heartbeat. (The 72-hour restrictions do not apply if there is a medical emergency.)
  • Abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy may be conducted only at a hospital.





barelypure
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now Arizona may have gone a little too far in their near total ban on abortions per a law passed in 1864. But with the uproar from Democrat and Republicans, including Kari Lake, they will most likely change the law to something more reasonable.
Wufskins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

I would like give my belief on this subject.

God is the creator of all things, including pregnancy. I personally believe that a child, regardless of how it was conceived is precious. Rape, Incest, etc.. as bad as they are, a person is playing God when they take the life of an innocent unborn child. Why? its Gods creation...

Now, I'm confident only a few will agree with my belief. So, for that matter, my voice is only one voice and another persons voice is only one voice. The States, with the voices, of its citizenry, should make and pass laws that best represent those people. I believe that the constitution plainly states this is a States rights issue.

All the if's, then's, and what about's are all things that can be negotiated at a State level. If you take a look at Trumps video, on this issue, he received significant blowback, from both parties, on this issue. Democrats say he wants to take away more rights, from women. Republicans think he alienated pro-lifers on the issue.

Because of his position, he received blowback. That, from my perspective, probably set the correct balance.


I can respect your opinion on this Cary. But I can't respect a government that will force everyone to have your same opinion on the topic. And that's what many of these red states have done. If a state wants to hold a vote on abortion, then I'd stand by that state's decision. But these laws aren't supported by the majority as evidence from referendums in Kansas and Ohio.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wufskins said:

caryking said:

I would like give my belief on this subject.

God is the creator of all things, including pregnancy. I personally believe that a child, regardless of how it was conceived is precious. Rape, Incest, etc.. as bad as they are, a person is playing God when they take the life of an innocent unborn child. Why? its Gods creation...

Now, I'm confident only a few will agree with my belief. So, for that matter, my voice is only one voice and another persons voice is only one voice. The States, with the voices, of its citizenry, should make and pass laws that best represent those people. I believe that the constitution plainly states this is a States rights issue.

All the if's, then's, and what about's are all things that can be negotiated at a State level. If you take a look at Trumps video, on this issue, he received significant blowback, from both parties, on this issue. Democrats say he wants to take away more rights, from women. Republicans think he alienated pro-lifers on the issue.

Because of his position, he received blowback. That, from my perspective, probably set the correct balance.


I can respect your opinion on this Cary. But I can't respect a government that will force everyone to have your same opinion on the topic. And that's what many of these red states have done. If a state wants to hold a vote on abortion, then I'd stand by that state's decision. But these laws aren't supported by the majority as evidence from referendums in Kansas and Ohio.
Yea, I don't know about Kansas and Ohio. In a representative government, typically you will get what the citizens want, in a general nature. Based on the citizens, and their elected representatives, the balance will lean to a middle row, of their thinking. If it doesn't, then people will vote for that change.

For me, with my far more conservative stance, I understand that I may be in the minority; so, I truly try and stick with the way a representative government is supposed to work. Also, I don't believe in the majority makes the rule. That's not representative government.
Wufskins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Wufskins said:

caryking said:

I would like give my belief on this subject.

God is the creator of all things, including pregnancy. I personally believe that a child, regardless of how it was conceived is precious. Rape, Incest, etc.. as bad as they are, a person is playing God when they take the life of an innocent unborn child. Why? its Gods creation...

Now, I'm confident only a few will agree with my belief. So, for that matter, my voice is only one voice and another persons voice is only one voice. The States, with the voices, of its citizenry, should make and pass laws that best represent those people. I believe that the constitution plainly states this is a States rights issue.

All the if's, then's, and what about's are all things that can be negotiated at a State level. If you take a look at Trumps video, on this issue, he received significant blowback, from both parties, on this issue. Democrats say he wants to take away more rights, from women. Republicans think he alienated pro-lifers on the issue.

Because of his position, he received blowback. That, from my perspective, probably set the correct balance.


I can respect your opinion on this Cary. But I can't respect a government that will force everyone to have your same opinion on the topic. And that's what many of these red states have done. If a state wants to hold a vote on abortion, then I'd stand by that state's decision. But these laws aren't supported by the majority as evidence from referendums in Kansas and Ohio.
Yea, I don't know about Kansas and Ohio. In a representative government, typically you will get what the citizens want, in a general nature. Based on the citizens, and their elected representatives, the balance will lean to a middle row, of their thinking. If it doesn't, then people will vote for that change.

For me, with my far more conservative stance, I understand that I may be in the minority; so, I truly try and stick with the way a representative government is supposed to work. Also, I don't believe in the majority makes the rule. That's not representative government.


But representative government isn't happening in states that pass restrictive or outright bans on abortion. We see that in states that have put abortion on the ballot. It passes overwhelmingly in some of the reddest states.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wufskins said:

caryking said:

Wufskins said:

caryking said:

I would like give my belief on this subject.

God is the creator of all things, including pregnancy. I personally believe that a child, regardless of how it was conceived is precious. Rape, Incest, etc.. as bad as they are, a person is playing God when they take the life of an innocent unborn child. Why? its Gods creation...

Now, I'm confident only a few will agree with my belief. So, for that matter, my voice is only one voice and another persons voice is only one voice. The States, with the voices, of its citizenry, should make and pass laws that best represent those people. I believe that the constitution plainly states this is a States rights issue.

All the if's, then's, and what about's are all things that can be negotiated at a State level. If you take a look at Trumps video, on this issue, he received significant blowback, from both parties, on this issue. Democrats say he wants to take away more rights, from women. Republicans think he alienated pro-lifers on the issue.

Because of his position, he received blowback. That, from my perspective, probably set the correct balance.


I can respect your opinion on this Cary. But I can't respect a government that will force everyone to have your same opinion on the topic. And that's what many of these red states have done. If a state wants to hold a vote on abortion, then I'd stand by that state's decision. But these laws aren't supported by the majority as evidence from referendums in Kansas and Ohio.
Yea, I don't know about Kansas and Ohio. In a representative government, typically you will get what the citizens want, in a general nature. Based on the citizens, and their elected representatives, the balance will lean to a middle row, of their thinking. If it doesn't, then people will vote for that change.

For me, with my far more conservative stance, I understand that I may be in the minority; so, I truly try and stick with the way a representative government is supposed to work. Also, I don't believe in the majority makes the rule. That's not representative government.


But representative government isn't happening in states that pass restrictive or outright bans on abortion. We see that in states that have put abortion on the ballot. It passes overwhelmingly in some of the reddest states.
What's not representative about that?
First Page Last Page
Page 86 of 225
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.