|
|
Post by TheMark on May 25, 2019 22:36:44 GMT
You ready? This is an express elevator to hell, going down. Source 1: SCOTUS Doe v. BoltonSource 2: Guttmacher Institute, Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions Source 3: New York Reproductive Rights Act. Source 4: New York Public Health Law Section 4164. Source 5: Induced Abortion in the United StatesHere we go. In source 1, SCOTUS ruled in 1973 in Doe v. Bolton (ironically the same day as Roe V. Wade) says in part, This has been interpreted that if the pregnant woman didn’t want the baby for whatever reason (source 2) this falls under the “health of the mother.” Reason #1 at 74% is “Having a baby would dramatically change my life.” The implication is a negative change, because bringing a child home will dramatically change your life anyhow. Just as an aside, rape and incest total <2%. Source 3, the actual law, will repeal (under 2599-BB Section 3) source 4, which Section 1 reads thusly: Remember, the RHA removed this law, which is probably where the “infanticide” is coming from. The doctor performing the abortion is busy with their patient (the woman) and cannot attend to the infant. Since this can now be done in a clinic instead of a hospital (without all that fancy life-saving equipment and dozens of doctors), there is no doctor charged with the life of the baby, therefore the baby must be left to die. So in source 5, we show 3rd trimester abortions were 1.3% of the 2013 abortions, or about 12,000. After the 26th week (two weeks into the 3rd trimester) the baby is viable enough to have a better than 50% survival chance. So I have to ask. Why can’t there be an “Abort to Orbit” option for viable births? In case you don’t know, “Abort to Orbit” was an option for the Space Shuttle. This was for an “event” during the boost portion of the mission. ATO meant you weren’t going to make the orbit you wanted, but you could make a stable orbit. Any reason to abort a baby in this time frame (namely physical survival of the mother) can be equally solved by an emergency delivery, either by vaginal birth or c-section, as by killing the baby. Why, why, why can’t we deliver a live baby to be given up for adoption instead of an injection of digoxin to stop it’s heart? Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Leon on May 25, 2019 22:40:11 GMT
Here's my stance as a man and a human being on abortion. I realize I have no say according to many feminists, but I shall have one anyway.
What VA did was an extreme case and I don't know how many people would be for a viable abortion after the birth or even past 2nd trimester.
What AL did was equally extreme and not having any form of legal abortions is backward and will do more harm than good.
What is needed, especially as of last 5-10 years, is we need to stop giving extremists the rights and the power to screw up MAJORITY of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arc on May 26, 2019 0:56:42 GMT
George Tiller did multiple illegal late-term abortions on completely healthy fetuses as late the last month. The official, (later disproved) reason was for the mental health of the mother. Tiller never had to answer for his deeds as he was murdered. However, the medical doctor that signed off for those abortions, (second doctor OK is or was needed), lost her license as she just rubber stamped the paperwork and never did a clinical evaluation.
Tiller's Wikipedia entry is a literal shrine written by his worshipers who are also the "guards" of anything like the above being entered.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMark on May 26, 2019 12:59:44 GMT
What is needed, especially as of last 5-10 years, is we need to stop giving extremists the rights and the power to screw up MAJORITY of America. The problem is, only the extremists have enough passion to do something about it. That's the nature of life. After all, it was a bunch of extremist and angry white men who decided they could rule themselves better than a king ordained by God that created this country and way of life. My Grandmother told me the best birth control for a woman was an aspirin....held firmly between her knees until the urge to spread them passes. There are consequences to sex. Despite the best precautions, a baby can be the result. If a man is expected to "Man Up" and provide for the child until they are an adult (even when it's not theirs) if she decides to bring it to term, then she can "woman up" for 9 months at a minimum. I want to see every pregnancy come to full term, however I will compromise at abortion up to a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Shinytop on May 26, 2019 14:36:30 GMT
Nice thought, nice goal. Now if all who shares that goal would man up we might reach agreement in time. Of course I have some requirements.
Let's make sex education mandatory before age of puberty.
Let's make pregnancy prevention easy to get and free to all, after all, if no unwanted pregnancies occur then abortion discussion is moot.
Let's require pro lifers to adopt in the womb all unwanted pregnancies. There is nothing so sad in any society as an unwanted child and obviously pro-lifers all want children.
Let's require legislators who vote these draconian abortion laws be first on the list to adopt in the womb unwanted babies. Somehow I believe their Biblical beliefs would become more flexible.
Let's require every church that allocated millions for new additions match that money to agencies to adopt and educate the babies forced to be born.
When pro-lifers match their rhetoric with actions that will actually work and help the situation maybe I will begin to listen. For the moment 90% of what I see is mere posturing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon on May 26, 2019 14:49:35 GMT
Agree, but fuck it up enough people will get enough. Look at NYC and how even Liberals despise our mayor now.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMark on May 27, 2019 3:31:22 GMT
Nice thought, nice goal. Now if all who shares that goal would man up we might reach agreement in time. Of course I have some requirements. Let's make sex education mandatory before age of puberty. Let's make pregnancy prevention easy to get and free to all, after all, if no unwanted pregnancies occur then abortion discussion is moot. Let's require pro lifers to adopt in the womb all unwanted pregnancies. There is nothing so sad in any society as an unwanted child and obviously pro-lifers all want children. Let's require legislators who vote these draconian abortion laws be first on the list to adopt in the womb unwanted babies. Somehow I believe their Biblical beliefs would become more flexible. Let's require every church that allocated millions for new additions match that money to agencies to adopt and educate the babies forced to be born. When pro-lifers match their rhetoric with actions that will actually work and help the situation maybe I will begin to listen. For the moment 90% of what I see is mere posturing. I'm with you 104% on this. But I want to add one more: Let's require every politician who voted for a law allowing third trimester abortion help deliver and hold the dead baby, then ask the woman "why?" while holding said dead baby. Let's see if that doesn't soften their position. If it doesn't, then they can be considered psychopathic enough to put ideology over humanity and do not deserve to hold any political power. |
|
|
|
Post by Arc on May 27, 2019 4:27:29 GMT
Let's make sex education mandatory before age of puberty. Let's make pregnancy prevention easy to get and free to all, after all, if no unwanted pregnancies occur then abortion discussion is moot. Let's require pro lifers to adopt in the womb all unwanted pregnancies. There is nothing so sad in any society as an unwanted child and obviously pro-lifers all want children. Let's require legislators who vote these draconian abortion laws be first on the list to adopt in the womb unwanted babies. Somehow I believe their Biblical beliefs would become more flexible. Let's require every church that allocated millions for new additions match that money to agencies to adopt and educate the babies forced to be born. Generally speaking no, hell no. Evaluated on a grand and long-term scale, overall it is lunacy if you are truly serious IMO. But...surely you jest? |
|
|
|
Post by Shinytop on May 27, 2019 16:08:25 GMT
Nope, not jesting at all. That is what I would need before I would support anti abortion laws as draconian as recent laws in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arc on May 27, 2019 20:12:52 GMT
Nope, not jesting at all. That is what I would need before I would support anti abortion laws as draconian as recent laws in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri. Although I am familiar with the laws being proposed or passed in different states or venues I must admit I've not focused on them. That is because it is my strong impression that the laws are really not the goals in of themselves by those creating or proposing them. The real reason for the laws is to get them before the Supreme Court where undoubtedly most if not all of them will be overturned per Roe v Wade, (which is the real target.) The movement or desire by a large percent of the population to overturn that law is growing. The country is very divided by strong feelings of pro v opposed on the law. What's amusing to me is that a consensus or perhaps even a majority of non-partisan honest legal scholars, (including both pro-choice and pro-life), have from strictly a legal standpoint always said it is a bad law and that the court erred in making it by its precedent setting ruling. Then from an emotional standpoint people like George Tiller and laws like the Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri abuse the intent and spirit if not the actual substance of Roe v Wade. I believe that if Roe v Wade was overturned that down the line abortion rights would nationally eventually morph to what the original intent Roe v Wade intended. In other words women would still in most cases be able to legally get abortions in the first two trimesters, although that would vary state by state, but harsh anti-abortion laws would not in the long run stand up. |
|
|
|
Post by TheMark on May 28, 2019 0:08:54 GMT
People have forgotten the purpose and scope of power of the federal government. The federal government is supposed to have very little impact (direct or indirect) upon the individual citizen. Washington is (supposed to be) a "government for governments," namely regulate the trade between the states and represent the states to foreign governments.
Roe nationalized a single abortion policy across the nation. Instead of abortion being a state issue, it was made a national standard by nine men in black robes. If someone wan't to make it national law, then have Congress draft and pass a law on it. Let's see how many Congresscritters survive the next election cycle.
I fully support New York with their abortion law that's as loose as a hooker during Fleet Week. I equally support Alabama and their abortion laws. This is how it should be. The United States are fifty different experiments in freedom (despite Krysten Sinema's comment about "Arizona is the Meth Lab of Democracy").
The nice thing about this country is you can move almost anywhere. Most of the time it won't be easy or comfortable, but a $200 Greyhound ticket can get you several states away from where you are and to a place you might find more palatable. Just apply Corsale's Maxim to figure out where to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shinytop on May 28, 2019 14:21:02 GMT
The 10th Amendment is the one most ignored. But, Mark, I have to wonder what other laws or rights should be left to states? The Constitution has been amended to require the right to vote for women and blacks. So when SCOTUS determines a right is being violated can they state so? Is an amendment the only way rights can be extended to groups not specifically mentioned? The right of all to pursue happiness seems like it should mean just that and should not be infringed by any when no harm is done to others. Notice I said harm, not hurt feelings or being offended that one's religion says different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon on May 29, 2019 23:21:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMark on May 30, 2019 4:41:08 GMT
The 10th Amendment is the one most ignored. But, Mark, I have to wonder what other laws or rights should be left to states? The Constitution has been amended to require the right to vote for women and blacks. So when SCOTUS determines a right is being violated can they state so? Is an amendment the only way rights can be extended to groups not specifically mentioned? The right of all to pursue happiness seems like it should mean just that and should not be infringed by any when no harm is done to others. Notice I said harm, not hurt feelings or being offended that one's religion says different. The Constitution in its very nature and intent is a limiting document. It declares the structure of the federal government in it's three branches, what the powers each of those branches have and how one branch can affect the other branches. The branches do not have the power and authority to do anything the Constitution does not tell them they can do. The Bill of Rights are also written very clearly to be a list of actions the federal government cannot do to injure the People. To use the voting issues (women, minorities, age) as an example, it is clearly within the power and scope of the federal government to declare via legislation who is eligible to vote in federal elections (Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1). I think the states, if they don't want to let women or minorities vote, or if they want to have non-citizens vote, or even lower the voting age to 16 (as a state or two has proposed), let them do it. For state and local elections only. If a disenfranchised group doesn't like being disenfranchised, they can move to another State that is more accommodating. The result of that is a lower state population, a smaller tax base and less Representatives in the House. If they're okay with that, so am I. If Mississippi were to successfully eliminate the rights of minorities to vote, I am sure there would be job fairs held by Texas, Nebraska, Wyoming and others targeted at those disenfranchised people to move to their states and fill jobs. I am sure enticements like relocation expenses, home down payment assistance and more would be offered. Remember the "3/5ths compromise" was about representation in the House. It came about because the Slave states wanted slaves to count the same as a citizen in the Census, while the Free states did not want to count slaves at all. If the south had their way and slaves were counted as "whole persons," they would have had more Representatives (and thus more political power) in the House. Yes and no. If something is codified in the Constitution, then yes, it will take an Amendment to change that. But I just read the Constitution, and the Constitution places no limitation or requirements on who may vote. This leaves the criteria to the federal government and the states. But the Fifteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments could have been handled by legislation. Same with the Eighteenth (Prohibition). There were no points in the Constitution or previous Amendments that had to be "amended" to make these law. If the Fifteenth Amendment did not have "on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude," then the Twenty-Fourth (poll tax) would have been unnecessary, because the Fifteenth would have said: The States are independent countries, not provinces of the federal government. Let's start treating them the way they should be treated. |
|
