No exceptions

oxat622 said:
A fetus.

When it is born.

I'm being somewhat facetious. My sister-in-law is due next month. I'm comfortable saying she has a baby in her womb. My line is when it is viable outside the womb, even if medical intervention is needed.
Click to expand...
Oh...so a few days before it's born, it's still a fetus and ok to kill. Gotcha.
 
Tesoro said:
Oh...so a few days before it's born, it's still a fetus and ok to kill. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Abortions after 21 weeks are less than 1% of abortions and are medically necessary.

92% of abortions are in the first 14 weeks. 14-15 weeks = 3% 16-20 weeks 4% 21+ weeks = 1%
 
psycho_dad said:
Abortions after 21 weeks are less than 1% of abortions and are medically necessary.

92% of abortions are in the first 14 weeks. 14-15 weeks = 3% 16-20 weeks 4% 21+ weeks = 1%
Click to expand...
And?

.00008 percent of guns are used to kill someone.

So..why are you so worried about them?
 
IMG_1224.jpeg

That’s all we need to know.
 
said_aouita said:
Why are Republicans against exceptions in the case of rape/incest victims getting abortions?

In other words, why does the gop support rape and incest?
Click to expand...
Almost every national GOP politician, including Trump, say consistently that they support the exceptions. This seems to be the most politically practical position to take.

I do not support the exceptions and will share why.

In the case of rape and incest, there is a victim of a crime (the pregnant girl or woman), a completely innocent person who had no agency and took no action to create the situation (the unborn child), and a disgusting male who is 100% guilty and responsible for the situation - and the one of those 3 that gets the death penalty is the one with no agency.

Life of the mother is a misrepresentation of the practical reality. As an OB, you have two patients - mother and the unborn child. The goal is to have two living patients at the end of the pregnancy. If there are complications with the viable or unviable child that are threatening the life of the mother, you deliver the child and do what you can or is medically possible for the child. You are not God. You do what is necessary to preserve both lives and leave the rest to God. What you don't do is intentionally kill the child because that is immoral.

"Delivery" vs "intentionally killing the child" may sound like semantics when the end result will often be a dead child, but it makes all the moral difference in the world and creates the difference between a barbaric society and one that honors and values life.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
Well you sick fu--. I hope that's a typo.....

12 - 15 weeks as states decide is beyond reasonable, barring threat to the mother's life. Adoption is a thing. Support is available.
Click to expand...
adoption is a thing. prevention is a thing. unfortunately conservatives shut diwn places like Planned Parenthood that prevent the mist pregnancies and such prevent abortions. PP also counsels on adoptions. in shutting down PP in some states, there are now more abortions. Just step aside and let progressives keep lowering the number of abortions. FACTS
 
psycho_dad said:
adoption is a thing. prevention is a thing. unfortunately conservatives shut diwn places like Planned Parenthood that prevent the mist pregnancies and such prevent abortions. PP also counsels on adoptions. in shutting down PP in some states, there are now more abortions. Just step aside and let progressives keep lowering the number of abortions. FACTS
Click to expand...
When did a conservative last shut down a Planned Parenthood ?

PP leaving because they can’t make weight on "corporate's" dead baby quota doesn’t count, so clean up those cherry picked numbers
 
Last edited:
winbypin said:
Before 21 weeks?
Click to expand...
Many reasons. One thing is for sure. I have no idea what it takes to carry a baby and give birth. The majority of women that choose abortions have already had children, so they know much more than me. Doctors know much more than me.

Teen pregnancies are WAY down. Abortions have been steadily declining. Seems like we are on the right path. I'm not forcing something on a woman that is abused or has been raped. The subject is NO EXCEPTIONS. That's just counterproductive and unrealistic.
 
psycho_dad said:
Many reasons.
Click to expand...
Don't skirt the question. Is it because the vast majority are matters of convenience? Abortions are used for after the fact contraception most of the time. That's the reality.
psycho_dad said:
One thing is for sure. I have no idea what it takes to carry a baby and give birth. The majority of women that choose abortions have already had children, so they know much more than me.
Click to expand...
Link?
psycho_dad said:
Doctors know much more than me.

Teen pregnancies are WAY down. Abortions have been steadily declining. Seems like we are on the right path.
Click to expand...
Good.
psycho_dad said:
I'm not forcing something on a woman that is abused or has been raped.
Click to expand...
That's a miniscule amount of abortions.
psycho_dad said:
The subject is NO EXCEPTIONS. That's just counterproductive and unrealistic.
Click to expand...
No exceptions isn't likely and isn't supported by any majority. It's a red herring.
 
winbypin said:
Don't skirt the question. Is it because the vast majority are matters of convenience? Abortions are used for after the fact contraception most of the time. That's the reality. IS IT?

Link?
About 61% of women who have abortions in the United States have at least one previous birth. In 2021, the breakdown of previous births was:
  • Zero: 39.3%
  • One: 24.3%
  • Two: 20.0%
  • Three or more: 9.8%

Good.

That's a miniscule amount of abortions. ABUSE IS MORE THAN YOU THINK.

No exceptions isn't likely and isn't supported by any majority. It's a red herring. NO, IT IS WHAT IS BEING PUSHED IN MANY STATES AND BY CONSERVATIVES IN CONGRESS.
Click to expand...
www.nbcnews.com

Who's getting abortions? Not who you'd think

In American pop culture, the face of abortion is often a frightened teenager, nervously choosing to terminate an unexpected pregnancy. The numbers tell a far more complex story.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.
 
psycho_dad said:
www.nbcnews.com

Who's getting abortions? Not who you'd think

In American pop culture, the face of abortion is often a frightened teenager, nervously choosing to terminate an unexpected pregnancy. The numbers tell a far more complex story.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.
Click to expand...
As I said. A matter of convenience and after the fact contraception.
 
IVCguy said:
Almost every national GOP politician, including Trump, say consistently that they support the exceptions. This seems to be the most politically practical position to take.

I do not support the exceptions and will share why.

In the case of rape and incest, there is a victim of a crime (the pregnant girl or woman), a completely innocent person who had no agency and took no action to create the situation (the unborn child), and a disgusting male who is 100% guilty and responsible for the situation - and the one of those 3 that gets the death penalty is the one with no agency.

Life of the mother is a misrepresentation of the practical reality. As an OB, you have two patients - mother and the unborn child. The goal is to have two living patients at the end of the pregnancy. If there are complications with the viable or unviable child that are threatening the life of the mother, you deliver the child and do what you can or is medically possible for the child. You are not God. You do what is necessary to preserve both lives and leave the rest to God. What you don't do is intentionally kill the child because that is immoral.

"Delivery" vs "intentionally killing the child" may sound like semantics when the end result will often be a dead child, but it makes all the moral difference in the world and creates the difference between a barbaric society and one that honors and values life.
Click to expand...
If mothers are forced to raise an unhealthy baby born from incest who has various genetic disorders, do you approve if additional government assistance?
God isn't paying the medical bills.
 
said_aouita said:
If mothers are forced to raise an unhealthy baby born from incest who has various genetic disorders, do you approve if additional government assistance?
God isn't paying the medical bills.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I didn't say anything about mothers being forced to raise unhealthy babies. There are alternatives - unless the child is murdered.

IMO the term "government assistance" in the context of federal and state government is almost always an oxymoron. The government does not know you, doesnt know your family, and doesnt care about you, therefore, they cant care for you well. In most cases, the more they try to care for you, the more they keep you away from people and orgs who can care for you well, and, in many cases, their "assistance" is an active harm. So, no. I am not for causing additional harm to a woman that has already suffered something traumatic.

That said, federal and state govt does a short list of things well in terms of helping citizens. For example, the federal govt can offer help in cases like natural disasters where the scope overwhelms local organizations. But the best help is found with people who know you and you are in some kind of familial, social, spiritual, or direct governmental accountability relationship.

But it is interesting how the left side of the aisle looks at every problem through the lens that it requires the govt to regulate, pass laws, and pay for the fallout of the problem - when the govt has a miserable record of addressing individual crises with those tools.

What you are suggesting is that if I oppose the abortion exceptions, then I must necessarily support big govt assistance, but that is specious and a false conflation. I would support rings of assistance that begins with the family and progresses to friends, neighbors, church, and charitable organizations that have a much better record of effective care. The next ring is local then state govt, and if all else fails, the federal govt may have to be involved - but hopefully not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top