Politics And Current Events

[Gaucho]

Yes.

[NTP66]

Lol

[Viva la Ben]

I mean the “abortion is murder” have been paying the GOP to eliminate abortion access. Now that the gop state legislators are presented with a 10yo rape victim having to travel to a different state because the law was written with

No

Exceptions

They are struggling to square the pretzel logic.

[Troy Loney]

It sucks because the legal argument is correct, there is no “constitutional” right to abortion. It should obviously not be a “state issue”, but we relied on the court to prevent terrible states governments from making terrible policy.

It’s only “complicated” because the solution is unattainable. No one can stop these morons from electing people that want to make bad state policies

[Viva la Ben]

The right’s first blush was to call the 10yo story a fake, questioning if she was raped in the first place.

For those of you who are morons, a 10 YO getting pregnant is statutory rape.

[Troy Loney]

I mean the “abortion is murder” have been paying the GOP to eliminate abortion access. Now that the gop state legislators are presented with a 10yo rape victim having to travel to a different state because the law was written with

No

Exceptions

They are struggling to square the pretzel logic.

And last I checked, there is no pro-abortion movement out there fighting abortion restrictions across the country. I mean, every state places rules around the operation, the “other side” isn’t devoted to fighting those restrictions. So, it’s not a smart take at all. Some combination of lazy, naive, ignorant, etc

[Troy Loney]

Lol, man this sucks. Close to just outright celebrating the terrible things we’ve done

[dodint]

For those of you who are morons, a 10 YO getting pregnant is statutory rape.

Even if she was impregnated by another 10 year old?

[Viva la Ben]

yes

*not sure how the new GOP authored child marriage legislation in tennesse effects it.

[MWB]

they’re both terrible reductions of arguments and your continued defense of the latter is one reason why this will never be resolved

Regardless of someone's reasoning, banning abortions absolutely does control what a woman can do with her body. So whether people want to do it because of x, y, or z the end result is the same.

[MWB]

Where's that chart showing when abortions happen? These "8 month" scenarios are such outliers it's not really worth discussing

The vast majority of abortions – around nine-in-ten – occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2019, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 42 states and New York City (but not the rest of New York).

[NTP66]

Pfft, like we can trust the CDC. I want to see reported numbers from MedBuzz1.net.

[count2infinity]

The development of a cerebral cortex along with nerve networks that then connect are necessary for a fetus to register pain. This doesn’t happen until at least 24 weeks. 99% of abortions are carried out before then. So 93% before 13 weeks, 99% before 24 weeks. That last 1% is probably not a “I don’t want to do this anymore…” abortion. They’re likely medical issues. No real point here, just some context.

[crusherstasiak]

and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. .

i would like to see a poll of mastriano voters who believe the cdc data because for them the cdc is a deep state entity run entirely by the 'cabal'
i'd wager a substantial number of them believe that 'liberals' are not at all adverse to waiting until after their baby is born before deciding whether to keep it /have it killed/sell it to a sex-trafficker (50% of trump supporters believe in a satan worshiping child sex-trafficking cabal run by elite democrats and other notables such as

[NTP66]

Look at c2i over here trying to use science instead of religion.

[Gaucho]

Nice try, egghead.

[Viva la Ben]

“The gop isn’t going after the rights of lgbt community”

[Shyster]

It's interesting that you bring up a third party, as I believe that the 2 party duopoly in this country has tried to make this issue black and white, when in reality it's anything but. I think absolutists on both sides want this to be black and white. Basically, always 'murder' or never 'murder'. That makes it simple for each side and removes any room for discussion or debate. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.

The problem with that is....well, this is an extremely nuanced and complicated issue at its core. It deals with morality (not religion), the mother's health, the mother's rights, the baby's life, justifications to take or restrict actions, unintended consequences, personal responsibility and resulting consequences.......and so on. It couldn't be more gray.

For most people, the 'justification' for elective abortion should be, or needs to be, much more rigid the farther along in the pregnancy. For example, 'financial hardship' may be a completely valid justification at 13 weeks, but much less so at 8 months. What changed? Well, the baby did. For a lot of people, the baby's 'right' to exist starts to outweigh the mother's 'right' to choose to terminate as it develops. Once you believe that the fetus has become a 'baby', what exactly gives a single person the right to end its life? Financial hardship? She's the mother? It's not 'actually' a human being yet? And I'm not arguing universal truths here as that sliding scale is subjective and personal. It's part of the complexity to the issue, and for a lot of people moves the needle away from 'well it's her body, she can do whatever she wants.' It also explains why 'if you don't like abortions, just don't have one...but leave me alone' runs into opposition.

I think (or hope) when people start to evaluate the issue as a whole, rational people land on the fact that rape/incest involves a pregnancy that was forced upon the mother. It was the result of an act that was outside of her control and did not involve any 'decision' on her part....meaning that it's different than any other cause of pregnancy. It's not viewed the same, and shouldn't be treated the same.

Kind of similarly, a direct threat to the mother's physical health, especially (but not necessary limited to) something life threatening, is a scenario outside of her control and separate from her 'choice'. To me personally, that's not even an abortion. It's...something else.....and gut-wrenchingly awful.

But all of this is why for the vast majority of people this is a incredibly complex issue, and worthy of conversation. To its credit (or maybe its detriment) Roe made discussion and debate about abortion moot. It's not black and white anymore...and kinda needs to be discussed.

Agree with all of this, and very well said.

To be clear, when I detailed my personal issues with abortion, I was not advocating for government control. That I believe that, in many but certainly not all cases, abortion is the product of irresponsibility and avoiding consequences, that does not mean that I believe that government should prohibit it for that reason. The only possible justification for prohibiting abortion would be the first thing I cited: that it may violate the NAP. But I cannot say for certain that abortion violates the NAP, because neither I or anyone else can definitively say when human rights attach.

Personally, I wish that abortion were much less common than it is, and I abhor the stupidity and irresponsibility that leads to many abortions. There's no damn need for most abortions when we have so many good methods of birth control. But I do not want abortion to be illegal, and I would not vote to make it illegal, at least for abortions prior to viability.

[Shyster]

It's interesting that you bring up a third party, as I believe that the 2 party duopoly in this country has tried to make this issue black and white, when in reality it's anything but. I think absolutists on both sides want this to be black and white. Basically, always 'murder' or never 'murder'. That makes it simple for each side and removes any room for discussion or debate. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.

The problem with that is....well, this is an extremely nuanced and complicated issue at its core. It deals with morality (not religion), the mother's health, the mother's rights, the baby's life, justifications to take or restrict actions, unintended consequences, personal responsibility and resulting consequences.......and so on. It couldn't be more gray.

For most people, the 'justification' for elective abortion should be, or needs to be, much more rigid the farther along in the pregnancy. For example, 'financial hardship' may be a completely valid justification at 13 weeks, but much less so at 8 months. What changed? Well, the baby did. For a lot of people, the baby's 'right' to exist starts to outweigh the mother's 'right' to choose to terminate as it develops. Once you believe that the fetus has become a 'baby', what exactly gives a single person the right to end its life? Financial hardship? She's the mother? It's not 'actually' a human being yet? And I'm not arguing universal truths here as that sliding scale is subjective and personal. It's part of the complexity to the issue, and for a lot of people moves the needle away from 'well it's her body, she can do whatever she wants.' It also explains why 'if you don't like abortions, just don't have one...but leave me alone' runs into opposition.

I think (or hope) when people start to evaluate the issue as a whole, rational people land on the fact that rape/incest involves a pregnancy that was forced upon the mother. It was the result of an act that was outside of her control and did not involve any 'decision' on her part....meaning that it's different than any other cause of pregnancy. It's not viewed the same, and shouldn't be treated the same.

Kind of similarly, a direct threat to the mother's physical health, especially (but not necessary limited to) something life threatening, is a scenario outside of her control and separate from her 'choice'. To me personally, that's not even an abortion. It's...something else.....and gut-wrenchingly awful.

But all of this is why for the vast majority of people this is a incredibly complex issue, and worthy of conversation. To its credit (or maybe its detriment) Roe made discussion and debate about abortion moot. It's not black and white anymore...and kinda needs to be discussed.

Agree with all of this, and very well said.

To be clear, when I detailed my personal issues with abortion, I was not advocating for government control. That I believe that, in many but certainly not all cases, abortion is the product of irresponsibility and avoiding consequences, that does not mean that I believe that government should prohibit it for that reason. The only possible justification for prohibiting abortion would be the first thing I cited: that it may violate the NAP. But I cannot say for certain that abortion violates the NAP, because neither I or anyone else can definitively say when human rights attach.

Personally, I wish that abortion were much less common than it is, and I abhor the stupidity and irresponsibility that leads to many abortions. There's no damn need for most abortions when we have so many good methods of birth control. But I do not want abortion to be illegal, and I would not vote to make it illegal, at least for abortions prior to viability.

[crusherstasiak]

good god what is happening to my country?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

is Idaho really part of the country though?

[faftorial]

"The life of the mother exception just gives the evil doctors a way to get around the abortion ban."

[faftorial]

In some ways DeSantis is even worse than Trump:

When coronavirus vaccines for infants and young children were authorized for the first time last month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned parents against the “baby jabs,” saying regulators had done insufficient testing and trials.

Still, he said he wouldn’t stand in parents’ way if they chose to vaccinate their kids. “You are free to choose,” he assured them.

Florida parents say it hasn’t turned out that way. Many are struggling to find places to vaccinate their children, and they blame DeSantis — noting he was the only governor to refuse to preorder the vaccines, and to prohibit county health departments from distributing or administering the shots. Waitlists at pediatrician offices stretch for weeks. Doctor’s offices that have managed to get doses are fielding calls from parents hundreds of miles away. Families debate road trips to neighboring states in the hope of finding shots for their kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... is-ladapo/

[RonnieFranchise]

In some ways DeSantis is even worse than Trump:

When coronavirus vaccines for infants and young children were authorized for the first time last month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned parents against the “baby jabs,” saying regulators had done insufficient testing and trials.

Still, he said he wouldn’t stand in parents’ way if they chose to vaccinate their kids. “You are free to choose,” he assured them.

Florida parents say it hasn’t turned out that way. Many are struggling to find places to vaccinate their children, and they blame DeSantis — noting he was the only governor to refuse to preorder the vaccines, and to prohibit county health departments from distributing or administering the shots. Waitlists at pediatrician offices stretch for weeks. Doctor’s offices that have managed to get doses are fielding calls from parents hundreds of miles away. Families debate road trips to neighboring states in the hope of finding shots for their kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... is-ladapo/

My understanding from a lunatic FB friend anti vaxxer is that Publix refuses the vax to kids under 5, likely under state government pressure I’d guess. She of course cheered them not aallowing parents to “put that poison in their children.”

She is of course also a no abortion, no exception person.

[faftorial]

In some ways DeSantis is even worse than Trump:

When coronavirus vaccines for infants and young children were authorized for the first time last month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned parents against the “baby jabs,” saying regulators had done insufficient testing and trials.

Still, he said he wouldn’t stand in parents’ way if they chose to vaccinate their kids. “You are free to choose,” he assured them.

Florida parents say it hasn’t turned out that way. Many are struggling to find places to vaccinate their children, and they blame DeSantis — noting he was the only governor to refuse to preorder the vaccines, and to prohibit county health departments from distributing or administering the shots. Waitlists at pediatrician offices stretch for weeks. Doctor’s offices that have managed to get doses are fielding calls from parents hundreds of miles away. Families debate road trips to neighboring states in the hope of finding shots for their kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... is-ladapo/

My understanding from a FB friend anti vaxxer is that Publix refuses the vax to kids under 5, likely under state government pressure I’d guess. She of course cheered them not aallowing parents to “put that poison in their children.

She is of course also a no abortion, no exception person.

A Publix heir helped finance the Jan 6th event at the Ellipse. Not sure if she still has a say in Publix but it wouldn't surprise me.