Do you own your body?

[BabyBoomer50s]

An extreme position is having government and law enforcement overseeing womens’ medical care.

It’s very fascist. Is there a politically approved list of reasons someone cannot get an abortion? Are a woman’s rights up to the whims of state politicians?

How fascist will the GOP go?

We can all pick our favorite adjectives. Polls show that a clear majority of Americans oppose the prevalent Democrat position that abortion should be permitted with no restrictions.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

We can all pick our favorite adjectives. Polls show that a clear majority of Americans oppose the prevalent Democrat position that abortion should be permitted with no restrictions.

It's up to States now, as you wanted, and the "clear majority" doesn't matter.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It's up to States now, as you wanted, and the "clear majority" doesn't matter.

Totally agree. The 10 to 20 percent minorities who support unrestricted abortion are not evenly distributed across the country. They’re clustered. In CA for example, there is a high concentration of you folks. I haven’t seen any CA polling data but would be surprised if Prop 1 doesn’t pass easily.

 

[RobDownSouth]

We can all pick our favorite adjectives. Polls show that a clear majority of Americans oppose the prevalent Democrat position that abortion should be permitted with no restrictions. DERP!

"prevalent Democrat position" that you ascribed to them.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

"prevalent Democrat position" that you ascribed to them.

It’s certainly the prevalent Democrat position in CA. Measure 1, the ballot initiative that will allow unrestricted access if passed by voters, was passed with a 2/3 vote in both chambers of the state legislature and was signed by the governor. They strongly support it. I don’t hear many calls for restrictions coming from Democratic politicians these days. What restrictions do you support?

 

[adrina]

This is when they invent extreme scenarios that never really happen in order to create drama. It's their thing. Like the hysteria of at will abortions at time of birth. They are lying hysterics who depend on hyperbole, propaganda and dishonesty in order to make any semblance of a point.

 

[jaF0]

Wonder if the 'Pubs would like a Federal Law banning Tattoos? How would they get their skinhead shit stuffed into their skin?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It’s certainly the prevalent Democrat position in CA. Measure 1, the ballot initiative that will allow unrestricted access if passed by voters, was passed with a 2/3 vote in both chambers of the state legislature and was signed by the governor. They strongly support it. I don’t hear many calls for restrictions coming from Democratic politicians these days. What restrictions do you support?

Thank you for acknowledging your previous cherry picking.

I support an unrestricted right to abortion prior to fetal viability at 22 weeks. That immediately legalizes 88 percent of all abortions. I support the restrictions of "blanket bans" thereafter, as medical decisions should be made in consultation with a woman's physician only (i.e. not with her white male republican legislator). I support a restriction on "heartbeat" bills, period.

Why should there be restrictions, in your opinion? Besides your "cruelty is teh point/suffer bitch" sloganeering, obviously.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Wonder if the 'Pubs would like a Federal Law banning Tattoos? How would they get their skinhead shit stuffed into their skin?

Not the Republican candidate for MD-6

“One such solution is a tattoo for those who are infected,” Parrott wrote. “This mark could be inconspicuously placed, perhaps in a spot covered by a bathing suit, warning only those who might engage in intimate encounters with the infected person.

“An effective way to enforce the consistency of the tattoo would be to provide medicine to the infected individual only after they have received the HIV tattoo.”

The tattoo would prove “a 100 percent unmistakable sign allowing all parties involved to make an informed decision,” he wrote.

 

[jaF0]

'Silly wimmins, shushup and let us He Men speak for you!!!!'

GOP Candidate Says Abortion Decisions Belong to 'Gentlemen' Legislators​

Don Bolduc, who is running for the Senate in New Hampshire, said "as a man," he thinks women "get the best voice" when state representatives make the decisions.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Thank you for acknowledging your previous cherry picking.

I support an unrestricted right to abortion prior to fetal viability at 22 weeks. That immediately legalizes 88 percent of all abortions. I support the restrictions of "blanket bans" thereafter, as medical decisions should be made in consultation with a woman's physician only (i.e. not with her white male republican legislator). I support a restriction on "heartbeat" bills, period.

Why should there be restrictions, in your opinion? Besides your "cruelty is teh point/suffer bitch" sloganeering, obviously.

California is home to a large percentage of Democratic leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris and likely 2024 Democratic presidential candidate and current CA Governor Gavin Newsom. The Democratic candidate for governor in neighboring Arizona, as well as gubernatorial candidates like Beto O’Rourke in Texas, and Stacy Abrams in Georgia refused to identify any restrictions as well. Same thing is true of Senate candidates such as Tim Ryan of Ohio.

Unlike these high-profile Democratic politicians, you have clearly articulated support for restrictions after 22 weeks. Polls show most Americans, like you and I, believe that elective abortion should not be allowed at any stage of pregnancy.

To your question, it is my opinion that restrictions should be placed to protect the unborn lives inside the womb. Reasonable people can debate when life begins. For some, it’s when cardiac activity is detectable. For others, it begins a bit later. For most moms and dads, it begins when they see their first ultrasound.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I believe "fetal viability" should be the standard by which any and all "restrictions" on abortions should be measured against. Fetal viability begins at 22-23 weeks. Prior to fetal viability, the government should have no "vested interest" in a fetus. "Fetal hearbeat" and other such appeals to emotion are simplistic deflections for simple minded people.

Again, 88 percent of all abortions occur prior to fetal viability.

 

[ll74]

I believe "fetal viability" should be the standard by which any and all "restrictions" on abortions should be measured against. Fetal viability begins at 22-23 weeks. Prior to fetal viability, the government should have no "vested interest" in a fetus. "Fetal hearbeat" and other such appeals to emotion are simplistic deflections for simple minded people.

Again, 88 percent of all abortions occur prior to fetal viability.

It's a good timeframe for compromise, I believe. And I'd be happy with that as a measure as well. Ultimately, I believe that as long as a woman comes to a decision with their doctor, that it should be acceptable. I'll always support the priority of that decision defer to the woman.

 

[jaF0]

I support NO government restrictions at all. NO interference between doctor and patient.

 

[jaF0]

Of course there are those who do harmful things like butt injections and certain religiously motivated mutilations, so .....

 

[ll74]

Related - personhood of fetuses appeal to SCOTUS declined by court.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-fetal-personhood-appeal-2022-10-11/

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582169198461341696

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Polling indicates that most Americans agree with JD Vance. After 15 weeks (with exceptions for rape, life of the mother or incest) is reasonable. But national legislation by Dems or GOP is a non-starter unless they blow up the filibuster. States are already making their own decisions.

 

[coati]

Polling indicates that most Americans agree with JD Vance. After 15 weeks (with exceptions for rape, life of the mother or incest) is reasonable. But national legislation by Dems or GOP is a non-starter unless they blow up the filibuster. States are already making their own decisions.

^^^Another control-freak Republican telling us what's "reasonable" after his party went overboard on controlling women.

No, Republicans, you don't control the bodies of free people, whether its women's health, gender identity, or sexual preference.

 

[icanhelp1]

^^^Another control-freak Republican telling us what's "reasonable" after his party went overboard on controlling women.

No, Republicans, you don't control the bodies of free people, whether its women's health, gender identity, or sexual preference.

What’s the difference? you’re OK with vaccine mandates which is governmental overreach on individuals.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

^^^Another control-freak Republican telling us what's "reasonable" after his party went overboard on controlling women.

No, Republicans, you don't control the bodies of free people, whether its women's health, gender identity, or sexual preference.

Not just Republicans. The Harvard-Harris poll found strong support for the 15 week position among Democrats and independents as well. Only 10% of voters said there should be no restrictions.

 

[icanhelp1]

Polling indicates that most Americans agree with JD Vance. After 15 weeks (with exceptions for rape, life of the mother or incest) is reasonable. But national legislation by Dems or GOP is a non-starter unless they blow up the filibuster. States are already making their own decisions.

Lindsey Graham’s stance on abortion hurts republicans, unreasonable, J D Vance’s position is a reasonable one more palatable for most Americans.

 

[icanhelp1]

Lindsey Graham’s stance on abortion hurts republicans, unreasonable, J D Vance’s position is a reasonable one more palatable for most Americans.

The all or nothing approach by either party is a losing argument.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Lindsey Graham’s stance on abortion hurts republicans, unreasonable, J D Vance’s position is a reasonable one more palatable for most Americans.

Graham’s bill calls for a ban after 15 weeks except in cases of risk to the mothers life, rape, or incest. Is that different than Vance’s? I heard him say 15 weeks was reasonable in the snippet from the debate

 

[ll74]

Polling indicates that most Americans agree with JD Vance. After 15 weeks (with exceptions for rape, life of the mother or incest) is reasonable. But national legislation by Dems or GOP is a non-starter unless they blow up the filibuster. States are already making their own decisions.

JD Vance is a tool. Viability is the only measure worth considering.