You can no longer get an abortion as of week 20

[EternalFantasies]

I know of no constitutional empowerment that allows Congress or any other branch of the federal government to legally dictate abortion anything to the states.

The ONLY recourse on abortion I can fathom as far as the federal government is concerned, is for Congress to pass legislation, and the President enact it, that asserts that innocent individual human life is created at conception by "the laws of nature and of nature's God", and that all innocent individual human life is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these" is "life".

I can see that legal argument winning with one more life-loving SC judge on the bench.

If federal government cannot support and defend an innocent individual human's unalienable right to life, then, well, America remains what it is now with illegal/unconstitutional statist government-sanction of the intentional murdering of almost 1 million innocent individual human lives every year, simply for convenience.

Other than that, I certainly don't see why a Governor and state legislature can't enact the very same law to so protect every innocent individual human life under its jurisdiction...

...and, if statist federal Judiciary illegally strikes that down again, the Governor should simply tell it to fuck off.

Obviously, there doesn't seem to be any governors more interested in protecting the unalienable right to life than their own political careers.

Ubersad that almost a million little innocent babies are intentionally murdered every year just because governors don't have balls.

The Bill has no consequences for the women doing it. It's the doctors who get 5 years. Federal crime.

 

[Hypoxia]

This again.

Until birth, an embryo is part of the body of a PERSON, a woman. An embryo is not a "person born" any more than is a corporation.

Granting an embryo personhood reduces the woman to chattel slavery. She is no longer a PERSON but an incubator, property of a man or the state or whomever claims ownership.

We can tell that a PERSON exists. They're visible. They occupy and interact with the outside world. An embryo may be invisible, unknown even to the mother till birth.

You want to protect embryos? You must be able to show their existence. How to do that? Implant a pregnancy monitor into every female human of child-bearing age, now about 7 to 70 years. A little LED on an earlobe: If it's green, fuck her. If it's red, she's preggers, and may no longer ingest unhealthy stuff, perform unhealthy acts, do anything to jeopardize the health of the embryo... which may naturally abort anyway. But now mom is a criminal.

Prisoner, slave, murderer. Femininity sucks, hey?

And embryo-lovers who oppose universal pregnancy monitors are hypocrites.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But it's okay to murder 59 of them after they're born, right?

Is it?


Hypoxia thinks those people got what they deserved because they support the Second Amendment. I'm willing to bet that even more here think that, but aren't stupid enough to actually post it...

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The reality is that even IF that is the case - and it's not been readily demonstrated at all - you would be advocating passing legislation that is quite harmful to what is the NORM in cases of abortion after 20 weeks.

How much sense does it make to legislate based on a possible fractional minority when the law would very much so harm the overwhelming majority?

It does not.

This is what passes for an attempt at governing in the GOP . No facts. No science. All pandering to those that are holier than thou.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Ubersad that almost a million little innocent babies are intentionally murdered every year just because governors don't have balls.

The ones with balls are impregnating their mistresses and then getting abortions for them.

 

[richard_daily]

This again.

Until birth, an embryo is part of the body of a PERSON, a woman. An embryo is not a "person born" any more than is a corporation.

Granting an embryo personhood reduces the woman to chattel slavery. She is no longer a PERSON but an incubator, property of a man or the state or whomever claims ownership.

We can tell that a PERSON exists. They're visible. They occupy and interact with the outside world. An embryo may be invisible, unknown even to the mother till birth.

You want to protect embryos? You must be able to show their existence. How to do that? Implant a pregnancy monitor into every female human of child-bearing age, now about 7 to 70 years. A little LED on an earlobe: If it's green, fuck her. If it's red, she's preggers, and may no longer ingest unhealthy stuff, perform unhealthy acts, do anything to jeopardize the health of the embryo... which may naturally abort anyway. But now mom is a criminal.

Prisoner, slave, murderer. Femininity sucks, hey?

And embryo-lovers who oppose universal pregnancy monitors are hypocrites.

This. All of this.

The state (and everyone else for that matter) has no business demanding to control a woman's uterus.

Her body, her choice. Hard stop.

 

[DMBFFF]

Hypoxia, I'm going to assume you didn't read my previous posts here, for they get verbose. If she read it, no one should fault adrina for needing a rest.


That mentioned:

Until birth, an embryo is part of the body of a PERSON, a woman. An embryo is not a "person born" any more than is a corporation.

It's more animal.

Granting an embryo personhood reduces the woman to chattel slavery. She is no longer a PERSON but an incubator, property of a man or the state or whomever claims ownership.

More like a conscript—though some would say that's a form of slavery. She is property of no man or state. When the pregnacy has ended, she's free to do whatever. Indeed, during the pregnancy, she can still do much.

We can tell that a PERSON exists. They're visible. They occupy and interact with the outside world. An embryo may be invisible, unknown even to the mother till birth.

(Where does that leave recluses?)

They can be sensed and with machines seen. Whether or not they are persons, they are human, alive, and, while probably not as sentient as we or even babies, might possibly be capable of sensing pain.

Btw, would you support the abortion of a day-to-be-born fetus as a right? Why not the killing of an unwanted day-old baby? What's the difference besides 48 hours?

You want to protect embryos? You must be able to show their existence. How to do that? Implant a pregnancy monitor into every female human of child-bearing age, now about 7 to 70 years. A little LED on an earlobe: If it's green, fuck her. If it's red, she's preggers, and may no longer ingest unhealthy stuff, perform unhealthy acts, do anything to jeopardize the health of the embryo... which may naturally abort anyway. But now mom is a criminal.

I didn't know 7 and 70 year-olds regularly got pregnant: but as adrina indicated, there's a lot I don't know.

Until 20 weeks, she can do whatever. After 20 weeks, it's a bit more limited. As for if she's pregnant, unless she intends to abort, she shouldn't be drinking or taking other drugs. Do we need more FAS victims?

Prisoner, slave, murderer. Femininity sucks, hey?

As a man I wouldn't know personally. Some pro-life types do, and might tell you otherwise.

And embryo-lovers who oppose universal pregnancy monitors are hypocrites.

Then I guess that makes me a hypocrite.




http://www.btchflcks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/the-host-hd-161-e1442948241787.jpg

(I know, the picture is somewhat unrelated. Jadzia not only was okay with it, she likely desired it.)

 

[dicknjane]

so all the options to prevent the pregnancy and the ability to detect the pregnancy within days of conception they still need 20 weeks to try to find the father and see if he will take care of the kid? I mean free birth control and condoms, plan b over the counter, spermicide, douche, pull out, anal, oral and all the other options and they just can't prevent getting pregnant. Just too many horny guys on the train ride to bump into and catch a pregnancy.

I mean heaven forbid it can hardly be prevented and you want me to decide within 20 weeks if I want a kid or not?

Don't give me the deformity/non-viability BS. If that was the real concern it would be a simple amendment if it's not already accounted for.

Good God you liberals love killing people, but God save the feral cat and the chickens.

 

[DMBFFF]

so all the options to prevent the pregnancy and the ability......

......

......

Good God you liberals love killing people, but God save the feral cat and the chickens.

dicknjane, you were doing well until the last sentence—tripped over a speed bump if you will.

After birth, it's sentient life; before, we're not so sure: probably not, at least not in the early stages.

As for cats and chickens, they are likely more advanced than human fetuses, at least early on: more so embryos and zygotes. I'm not saying you can't kill them, or even, if necessitated, cause them pain, but some consideration for their lives should be given.

You think cruelty to animals is okay?

The last time you had fried chicken, did you think about how that chicken was, as one comedian put it, marinating in its own shit?

 

[zipman]

It's pretty obvious that republicans are just embarrassed they couldn't repeal the ACA so they are going for a quick win by giving their base what they want, something to make getting an abortion more difficult.

 

[adrina]

I'm not going to answer things one by one. Instead I will present to you the case and reality of abortion after 20 weeks and why it is absolutely imperative that any 20 week bans not be enacted. As it is there are too many states with them and far too few court challenges.

source

Of particular concern are two classes of fetal anomalies that cannot be detected early in a pregnancy. First are the variable-onset fetal anomalies. These anomalies begin at variable gestational ages but are often detected beyond 20 weeks. Second are the late-onset anomalies that develop late in the gestational age of the fetus, typically in the second or third trimester, or are undetectable until the abnormality is at the end-point of a pregnancy. Importantly, the 20-week bans passing across the states generally do not include exceptions for lethal fetal anomalies, meaning women are forced to carry fetuses with anomalies to term, regardless of viability.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, writes that variable-onset and late-onset anomalies are difficult to diagnose before 20 weeks. In a brief supporting the doctors who have challenged Arizona’s law, ACOG notes, “by the time a diagnosis is confirmed by a specialist capable of diagnosing these anomalies, the pregnancy has often progressed beyond 20 weeks.” This is usually due to the length of time it takes to schedule additional tests and to receive results. They add that the obesity epidemic in states like Arizona compounds the ability of earlier ultrasounds to detect major anomalies, including those that are lethal.

Numerous examples of lethal fetal anomalies detected after 20 weeks include, but are not limited to:

• anencephaly, which is a lethal fetal anomaly characterized by the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, leading to death before or shortly after birth
• renal agenesis, where the kidneys fail to materialize, leading to death before or shortly after birth
• limb-body wall complex, where the organs develop outside of the body cavity
• neural tube defects such as encephalocele (the protrusion of brain tissue through an opening in the skull), and severe hydrocephaly (severe accumulation of excessive fluid within the brain)
• meningomyelocele, which is an opening in the vertebrae through which the meningeal sac may protrude
• caudal regression syndrome, a structural defect of the lower spine leading to neurological impairment and incontinence
• lethal skeletal dysplasias, where spinal and limb growth are grossly impaired leading to stillbirths, premature birth, and often death shortly after birth, often from respiratory failure

In their brief supporting the challenge to Arizona’s 20-week ban, the ACOG explains that allowing abortions only in the case of the life of the mother:

“will jeopardize women’s health by severely curtailing physicians’ ability to treat patients who face serious health conditions later in pregnancy and will force women to carry pregnancies to term when their fetuses suffer from serious impairments, including those that are incompatible with life. And notwithstanding the legislature’s and Defendants’ claim that the Act is intended to protect women from the alleged health risks posed by abortion, clear medical evidence shows that abortion is many times safer for a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, that abortion past 20 weeks is not more dangerous than carrying to term and giving birth, and that abortion does not harm the psychological well- being of pregnant women.” [Emphasis added]

There's boatloads more on that link but I am limited to a handful of paragraphs. Feel free to educate yourself.

source

Many of these fetal pain bills are based on the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” template produced by the National Right to Life Committee. This template asserts that fetuses feel pain as early as 13 weeks and suggests that the possible presence of fetal pain should abrogate a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

The junk science of fetal pain, for example, hinges almost exclusively on factsheets and testimony that cherry pick quotations about the development of neural pain receptors in the fetus, rather than on comprehensive scientific literature. The junk science used to support the case for fetal pain relies on tying together assertions about how the fetus has reflexive responses to noxious stimuli as the fetus develops, though clearly reflexive responses aren’t synonymous with the experience of pain.

In response to scientific discourse pertaining to the utility of fetal anesthesia during abortion procedures, many double-blind peer-reviewed studies have tackled both the assertion of fetal pain and the suggestion of anesthetics in neutralizing fetal pain. Consequently, comprehensive studies of fetal pain have concluded that fetuses do not feel pain at the 20-week mark. And the most exhaustive review of studies finds that claims of fetal pain are unsupported by peer-reviewed science. These studies suggest that while the neural pathways to experience pain begin forming around 23 weeks gestation, the pathways are not functional and cannot transmit the noxious stimuli to the brain before 29 or 30 weeks.

These studies also impugn other assertions by the junk science pushed by “fetal pain” lobbyists. In a review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, for example, the authors suggest:

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.

Again, paragraph limitations for sources. Feel free to continue reading on the link.

And finally, who has an abortion after 20 weeks?

According to the Guttmacher Institute, only about 1 percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks of gestation (a normal pregnancy is 40 weeks), which are those banned by the proposed Texas law.

Why do some women wait so long? The answer is that comprehensive fetal testing, such as anatomical sonograms and ultrasounds of the heart, are typically performed just before 20 weeks of gestation. Such scans are critical for uncovering major birth defects, such as anencephaly (severe brain malformations), major heart defects, missing organs and limbs, and other severe birth defects. Fetal development is a complex process that often goes awry. Roughly 2 percent of all pregnancies are complicated by a major birth defect, and of those about 0.5 percent have a chromosomal defect, such as an extra or missing segment of normal DNA. Birth defects are a leading cause of infant mortality, and in many cases of severe birth defects, no medical treatment can salvage a fetus’s life or result in any measure of normal future health.

But consider the fact that almost all major defects would be detected around 20 weeks, and that the defects are much more common than many people realize. In Texas, there are likely thousands each year. Thus, the data are very suggestive that many late mid-term abortions are not performed because a woman is using the procedure for routine birth control. It is likely that many women find that a severe, untreatable birth defect is present that was undetectable until halfway through the pregnancy. Those are the ones who could be henceforth banned by the proposed Texas law, which would require many women who want abortions instead to carry fetuses with severe defects to term.

Stories from women and families that chose to abort after 20 weeks

It's eye opening. And may no one ever question your humanity for having sympathy for these poor women or advocating for them to have the medical care they need.

Oh and the risks women face in pregnancy, gestation and giving birth - regardless that "we do it all the time".

US has the worst rate of maternal deaths in the developed world

NPR and ProPublica teamed up for a six-month long investigation on maternal mortality in the U.S. Among the key findings:

• More American women are dying of pregnancy-related complications than any other developed country. Only in the U.S. has the rate of women who die been rising.
• There's a hodgepodge of hospital protocols for dealing with potentially fatal complications, allowing for treatable complications to become lethal.
• Hospitals — including those with intensive care units for newborns — can be woefully unprepared for a maternal emergency.
• Federal and state funding show only 6 percent of block grants for "maternal and child health" actually go to the health of mothers.
• In the U.S, some doctors entering the growing specialty of maternal-fetal medicine were able to complete that training without ever spending time in a labor-delivery unit.

Basic risks or pregnancy

Include but are not limited to:

• Anema
• Breech
• Depression
• Ectopic Pregnancy
• Fetal problems
• Gestational Diabetes
• Pregnancy related high blood pressure
• Miscarriage
• Placenta Previa
• Placental Abruption
• Preeclampsia
• Premature Birth

And that doesn't include what pregnancy often does to teeth and bones. Pregnancy is very hard on a woman's body. To trivialize it by saying "well they do it all the time" is very dismissive of the reality of the gestating woman.


Also, to anyone says hey it's just the doctors that will face punishment, I would suggest looking at the logistical realities of needing a treatment or facing very possible death and not being able to find a doctor to help you. If death counts as hurting the woman, then it's not just the doctor facing the consequences. To say otherwise is foolish and short sighted.

I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but I would encourage you to actually look into the realities before being so dismissive of the need for women to have complete freedom in regards to abortion access and care. Twenty week or later abortions are not taken on a whim. To say they are is... inhumane.

 

[DMBFFF]

I'm not going to answer things one by one......

......


......As it is there are too many states with them and far too few court challenges.

First off, thank you for your attention, time, posts, and sources.

I realize that all of this is not in a vacuum. The conservatives want to ban abortion and this is one of their weapons: I get it. But as one who somewhat prides himself as somewhat non-partisan, at least in regards to Democrat versus Republican—however I tend to side with Democrats, and pro-Life versus pro-Choice—however I tend to side with the latter.

The abortion debate is one of seemingly great polarity, and yet I presume many people are moderates, as they are in other issues. Just as I think banning things like abortion pills or IUDs is stupid, I'm not going to endorse—not immediately at least—things like particularly late abortions. Part of it is the definition of human life, but also is possible semi-sentient life feeling pain.

Actually, to toss you an argument you can use against me is the parasitism argument, or in the case of this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
However, this might strike some as a raw deal.

Imagine a person was being pursued by someone out to kill him/her with an assault rifle. Let's say the person fled down a series of alleys and entered what he/she thought was a safe place, but the owner of the place was there.

The owner has a right to order that person out to a certain, or at least a very probable, death. However, allowing refuge until the danger has passed would be laudable.

The fetus is either a sentient being or not. If not, we can kill it; but even if he/she was a person, he/she is arguably occupying space that isn't his/her own, and while abortion would most likely lead to his/her death, such is property rights—particularly if the property is one's own body.

Still the argument sounds a bit like a raw deal.



As for your post and links: granted, I haven't given them a thorough reading—not yet, but it seems to be a reiteration of previous points: some, or most, women seeking late-term abortions do it for medical reasons and that anti-choicers are making it hard for women; and I return to my responses. The latter first: yeah, anti-choicers are bad and I generally oppose them. As for situations where life or health is in danger, I don't object; but even if post-20 week abortions accounted for 1% of the +450 000 abortions a year, and if, say, 99% were for health, that'd still be 45 life-forms that might feel pain; and again, with exceptions to health made, I don't see baring such abortions as much of a problem.

Again, if so few women do it after 20 weeks and if so few are for non-medical reasons, it shouldn't be a problem. If many do it, then the issue of fetal pain rises more. As for medical tests, presumably as late-term abortions are likely more intense, presumably a few tests are in order.

Next you tell me how bad pregnancy is for women. I find it hard to believe that our species for the past several 10 000s of years, and as hominids and at least mammals millions of years before that, hasn't evolved to make things safer. Though to be fair, our relatively recent bipedalism, larger craniums, and, I think, longer gestations, might have negated some of the benefits of such evolution.

But again, if a woman who engages in procreative sex wants to have an abortion, she can do so before 20 weeks, or 30, or whenever the possibility of fetal pain is significant, AND while I don't casually dismiss the findings and conclusions of experts, I will reiterate that like other people, they have biases and interests. Contrary to Jack Nicholson's character, most of us can handle the truth, and that experts at times got it wrong in the past, including in regards to women's health: women shouldn't play sports, women can't have responsible positions, washing hands is unnecessary, even after handling cadavers, etc.

 

[adrina]

Go read the contents from the links I posted first.

It is not some or most seeking abortion past 20 weeks for medical reasons. It is all or nearly all. Fetal abnormality.

It is a travesty and a complete miscarriage of justice to deny access to these women an abortion in the late term. it is apathetic at best and malevolent at worst. It is worse than kicking a horse when they're down. Read the links all of them.

Especially the part about fetal pain being junk science. Unless you like to torture women in a non consensual manner that hurts them beyond imagination based on junk science there is no justification whatsoever for banning abortion after 20 weeks.

I am asking you to Simply acknowledge how hard pregnancy is on the human female body and how poor of a job in the US as a developed country we provide care for them. You and others seem to have a very laissez faire attitude towards pregnancy and what it does to the female body Pegnancy changes the body forever. It is something that needs to be acknowledged instead of handled in an offhand way of "it happens all the time". When was the last time you were pregnant?

Your post is an insult and makes you sound ignorant and inhumane.

Read the damn links and then come back and reread your post.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I love seeing all the uber-intrusive control freak government lovers who love regulation just for the sake of regulating.....totally freaking out over government regulationg coming in and dictating the terms of the exchange of goods and services between consenting adults.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/ae/89/98ae891254f229842ff6e216eef76428.jpg

Suddenly the socialist shits find themselves ardent free market capitalist and libertoonians when it's their ox being gored.

 

[adrina]

Yes republicans that want a government small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus or a gay couple's bedroom. The party of small government unless it's about their pet social issues. They deregulate everything except abortion.

You're a class act Charlie Brown.

 

[KimGordon67]

First off, thank you for your attention, time, posts, and sources.

I realize that all of this is not in a vacuum. The conservatives want to ban abortion and this is one of their weapons: I get it. But as one who somewhat prides himself as somewhat non-partisan, at least in regards to Democrat versus Republican—however I tend to side with Democrats, and pro-Life versus pro-Choice—however I tend to side with the latter.

The abortion debate is one of seemingly great polarity, and yet I presume many people are moderates, as they are in other issues. Just as I think banning things like abortion pills or IUDs is stupid, I'm not going to endorse—not immediately at least—things like particularly late abortions. Part of it is the definition of human life, but also is possible semi-sentient life feeling pain.

Actually, to toss you an argument you can use against me is the parasitism argument, or in the case of this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
However, this might strike some as a raw deal.

Imagine a person was being pursued by someone out to kill him/her with an assault rifle. Let's say the person fled down a series of alleys and entered what he/she thought was a safe place, but the owner of the place was there.

The owner has a right to order that person out to a certain, or at least a very probable, death. However, allowing refuge until the danger has passed would be laudable.

The fetus is either a sentient being or not. If not, we can kill it; but even if he/she was a person, he/she is arguably occupying space that isn't his/her own, and while abortion would most likely lead to his/her death, such is property rights—particularly if the property is one's own body.

Still the argument sounds a bit like a raw deal.



As for your post and links: granted, I haven't given them a thorough reading—not yet, but it seems to be a reiteration of previous points: some, or most, women seeking late-term abortions do it for medical reasons and that anti-choicers are making it hard for women; and I return to my responses. The latter first: yeah, anti-choicers are bad and I generally oppose them. As for situations where life or health is in danger, I don't object; but even if post-20 week abortions accounted for 1% of the +450 000 abortions a year, and if, say, 99% were for health, that'd still be 45 life-forms that might feel pain; and again, with exceptions to health made, I don't see baring such abortions as much of a problem.

Again, if so few women do it after 20 weeks and if so few are for non-medical reasons, it shouldn't be a problem. If many do it, then the issue of fetal pain rises more. As for medical tests, presumably as late-term abortions are likely more intense, presumably a few tests are in order.

Next you tell me how bad pregnancy is for women. I find it hard to believe that our species for the past several 10 000s of years, and as hominids and at least mammals millions of years before that, hasn't evolved to make things safer. Though to be fair, our relatively recent bipedalism, larger craniums, and, I think, longer gestations, might have negated some of the benefits of such evolution.

But again, if a woman who engages in procreative sex wants to have an abortion, she can do so before 20 weeks, or 30, or whenever the possibility of fetal pain is significant, AND while I don't casually dismiss the findings and conclusions of experts, I will reiterate that like other people, they have biases and interests. Contrary to Jack Nicholson's character, most of us can handle the truth, and that experts at times got it wrong in the past, including in regards to women's health: women shouldn't play sports, women can't have responsible positions, washing hands is unnecessary, even after handling cadavers, etc.

Adrina has addressed these points more than enough, with a mountain of relevant evidence. A tiny tiny number of post-20 week abortions happen. In the vast majority of those cases, it's because of a threat to the woman's life, or a fetal abnormality. Both of those things are known risks. But you're basically suggesting we should ignore that because the fetus might feel pain.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes republicans that want a government small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus or a gay couple's bedroom. The party of small government unless it's about their pet social issues. They deregulate everything except abortion.

You're a class act Charlie Brown.

Deflect all you want, doesn't change the hypocrisy I've already highlighted, enjoy the common sense regulations on abortion.

And since when were republicans the party of small government?

LOL they don't want to Deregulate anything but themselves, they love regulating the fuckin' shit out of everything not their own special interest, just as bad as the (D)'z.

 

[adrina]

Adrina has addressed these points more than enough, with a mountain of relevant evidence. A tiny tiny number of post-20 week abortions happen. In the vast majority of those cases, it's because of a threat to the woman's life, or a fetal abnormality. Both of those things are known risks. But you're basically suggesting we should ignore that because the fetus might feel pain.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[DMBFFF]

adrina,

I hope I'm not ticking you off, because that's not my intention;

nor am I particularly trying to win an argument.

You want to win the argument? Fine. You win. Abortion should be a government funded right for every girl and woman in America and clinics should be within 10 km of everyone of them in America. In fact, doctors should be allowed to pierce the skulls of a fetuses whose heads are appearing; and Clinton's loss is the worse political travesty in politics in America in living memory.

You are victorious! You win!

You feel better?

You win what? The concession of some guy on the internet?


If I wanted to read a bunch of links, I'd go to Wikipedia.

Go read the contents from the links I posted first.
It is not some or most seeking abortion past 20 weeks for medical reasons. It is all or nearly all. Fetal abnormality.

Here we go around the fucking ranch again.

You post as if I'm disputing that assertion. I'm not; and I don't feel like reiterating my counter—I've already done it.

It is a travesty and a complete miscarriage of justice to deny access to these women an abortion in the late term

[Clap. clap. clap.] You did a fine job beating up that strawman.

Read the links all of them.

If you're going to order me to do something, at least you could punctuate your order better.

Especially the part about fetal pain being junk science.

round and round

Unless you like to torture women in a non consensual manner that hurts them beyond imagination based on junk science there is no justification whatsoever for banning abortion after 20 weeks.

I'm so fucking glad I'm not a woman and that I'll never, ever, suffer the torture of pregnancy. If I was a woman I'd immediately get my tubes tied to insure that I'd never, ever, get pregnant.

I am asking you to Simply acknowledge how hard pregnancy is on the human female body and how poor of a job in the US as a developed country we provide care for them.

I acknowledge it: pregnancy seems to me to be pretty hard. I hear and read of morning sickness. Some say it's not restricted to mornings. There are hormonal swings. I heard of women crying during Hallmark greeting car commercials. There's the swelling, and 15 kg for a woman might be like double that for a man. There is childbirth itself. Dr. Sue says its not as bad as getting a tooth pulled. Others describe it as painful as getting a finger cut off. Madonna, if I remember correctly said it's the worse pain she ever had and she wouldn't do it again—though she did. There's hemmeroids and swollen feet—though I understand that often one gets a visit from the tit fairy. Then there's post-partum depression.

and this is all on top of the homework assignments you've given me.


Is this enough of an insulting display of my ignorance?

As for the universal health care you're implying: another issue.

You and others seem to have a very laissez faire attitude towards pregnancy and what it does to the female body. Pegnancy changes the body forever. It is something that needs to be acknowledged instead of handled in an offhand way of "it happens all the time".

First off, the body was going to change anyway. I can't seem to tell the difference—or much of one—between women who've been pregnant and those who haven't.

When was the last time you were pregnant?

Another ad hominem: but hey, I can fire back. When was the last time YOU were pregnant?

Don't answer.

Were you ever pregnant?

Don't answer.

If no, then are you personally that much more informed about it than me?

Don't answer.

If yes, was it god-awful? Was giving birth the worse pain you ever experience? Did and do you wish it never happened?

Don't answer.

Your post is an insult

I hope you're not offended. Because one thing leftists seem pretty good at is being offended.

and makes you sound ignorant and inhumane.

Yeah, all that stuff about concerns for fetal pain, for animal welfare, and women being allowed to have abortions up to 20 weeks and beyond if it's a health risk—and according to you such is the majority—and I'm not particularly disputing that.

A frickin' inhumane ignoramus: that's me.

Read the damn links and then come back and reread your post.

I suppose I will in time; but what if I came to the same conclusion?

Adrina has addressed these points more than enough, with a mountain of relevant evidence. A tiny tiny number of post-20 week abortions happen. In the vast majority of those cases, it's because of a threat to the woman's life, or a fetal abnormality. Both of those things are known risks. But you're basically suggesting we should ignore that because the fetus might feel pain.

If you're going to back up adrina, could you please come up with something original? Whatever validity in adrina's arguments isn't augmented by you waving your hand and saying "me too!".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So,



I wonder. Is there a point at which some of you feel that a pregnancy must go forward?


When the head appears??? But wait! It's still attached to the body...


Still not a person, still just property.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Adrina has addressed these points more than enough, with a mountain of relevant evidence. A tiny tiny number of post-20 week abortions happen. In the vast majority of those cases, it's because of a threat to the woman's life, or a fetal abnormality. Both of those things are known risks. But you're basically suggesting we should ignore that because the fetus might feel pain.

Not to mention that this is all regulated and legislated at the state level already and this bill in the Congress is just so they can pass "something". Shocking that the only thing the Congress can pass is regulating a woman's body and denying access to healthcare and somehow the Republicans think that is governing.

Meanwhile we are $20T in debt, going to add $700B to that number by December and the next proposed act of governing is to give tax cut to the wealthy to make the debt worse.

But at least women are being made to jump through more hoops to have necessary medical procedures.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why did you only start talking about the debt after the election of President Donald J. Trump?


All I remember is, "Don't blame President Barack Hussein Obama! He inherited a mess!"

 

[adrina]

Blah fucking blah

The deal is you repeated yourself. You don't understand who gets these and why. You said the same damn thing. "Some." Not some. It is all or almost all. Dismissive of pregnancy, dismissive of women, dismissive of the facts of the matter in place of your own ignorant and ill informed opinion. Even dismissive of my experiences.

You obviously don't care to hear the actual facts of the matter.

You don't care to find out WHY these women need them and why they are necessary.

You wanted me to consider the science. I did and put forth the actual peer reviewed science. Which you couldn't be fucked to read. Or the actual experiences of the women that needed these procedures.

Yes you are pissing me off. Because of your willful ignorance. But hey thanks for the dollop of sarcasm too. You think it's no big deal but won't even bother to find out why it's a really big deal. Sure it doesn't effect a lot of women but the ones it does, it effects in an egregious manner. This laissez faire attitude causes needless suffering for women.

If you want to have an opinion based in willful ignorance I will give it the disdain it deserves.

Oh and PS, I'd just be thrilled if the insurance that these women pay for would cover the damn procedure and that they could get it in an atmosphere that wasn't toxic or malevolent.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good-fucking gawd...



Your link(s) are not peer-reviewed science.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Good-fucking gawd...



Your link(s) are not peer-reviewed science.

LMAO, you should talk, fuckface.