3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

So a mother wants to abort her child a day before he due date and you're ok with this. You're sick, dude. The cult you belong to has completely fried your brain. 

I think he meant the amount of abortions a person could have.

7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 It seems that there are some additional criteria. A quick search returned this:

 

 

Yeah it was a bit of a rhetorical question to be honest.  Still an interesting one in trying to decide when life starts and thus deserves full protection.  I'm convinced it isn't at conception but I'm equally convinced it isn't at birth.  I'm more in the "must be viable outside the womb" camp.

4 minutes ago, Kz! said:

So a mother wants to abort her child a day before he due date and you're ok with this. You're sick, dude. The cult you belong to has completely fried your brain. 

I already addressed this. This would be induced labor resulting in birth. Not an abortion.  Is abortion even medically possible at this late stage of pregnancy? Is there a doctor that can answer this? 

If you want to have a serious discussion, let's stop with the false arguments.

8 minutes ago, toolg said:

No laws are needed to limit abortions. Mothers, the medical community, everybody can figure this out on their own without politicians, courts, and the law getting involved.

Nah, that's not ok.  One could say the exact same about parents until children turn 18.  I'm not buying that one.  Children do have rights in my book, limited to an extent but still...

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah it was a bit of a rhetorical question to be honest.  Still an interesting one in trying to decide when life starts and thus deserves full protection.  I'm convinced it isn't at conception but I'm equally convinced it isn't at birth.  I'm more in the "must be viable outside the womb" camp.

 

Yeah, I've said before that I think Roe does a good job of finding some kind of compromise and that the basic tenet or using viability to determine legal life is standing on firm scientific ground and common sense.

14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So then you are ok to set a limit?

I believe the terminology used in current law is termed "fetal viability". I agree with that being the limit. 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Yeah, I've said before that I think Roe does a good job of finding some kind of compromise and that the basic tenet or using viability to determine legal life is standing on firm scientific ground and common sense.

Right but I think we can all agree that there isn't much chance we'll get a final consensus on that one.

Just now, toolg said:

I believe the terminology used in current law is termed "fetal viability". I agree with that being the limit. 

Oh ok, then we are closer than I thought.  I do think there is a reason to put some teeth behind this one though while it seems you do not.

Debates on subjective issues like this (abortion is arguably the most subjective) seen pointless to me now.

When ~40% of the country can't even make the most simplest of decisions on an issue with objectively right/wrong choices and where we have an overwhelming scientific consensus based on clear and unambiguous data, then how the F would we ever find common ground on something like abortion. Ya good luck on that.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Oh ok, then we are closer than I thought.  I do think there is a reason to put some teeth behind this one though while it seems you do not.

Right. My personal opinion is all laws limiting abortion should be wiped from the books. Realistically, I understand there are competing interests that are going to continue to try and legislate this issue. The current legal standard is fetal viability. I can agree to that. But really mothers, families, doctors, can figure this out just fine on their own.  

28 minutes ago, toolg said:

No laws are needed to limit abortions. Mothers, the medical community, everybody can figure this out on their own without politicians, courts, and the law getting involved.

Are there laws regarding other medical practices apart from abortion?  If so, why?  Should all laws regarding anything medical be eliminated because patients and doctors can figure it out on their own?  How about laws about corporations and employees, can't employees and employers figure things out on their own?  You could go down the line.

12 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Are there laws regarding other medical practices apart from abortion?  If so, why?  Should all laws regarding anything medical be eliminated because patients and doctors can figure it out on their own?  How about laws about corporations and employees, can't employees and employers figure things out on their own?  You could go down the line.

I'm not falling for that slippery slope fallacy... There can be laws limiting what doctors can do. Roe v. Wade defends women's fundamental right to choose abortion, government regulations in the matter are limited. 

10 minutes ago, toolg said:

I'm not falling for that slippery slope fallacy... There can be laws limiting what doctors can do. Roe v. Wade defends women's fundamental right to choose abortion, government regulations in the matter are limited. 

You said there should be no laws on abortion at all, that women and doctors can figure it out.  Now you're back pedaling and saying there can be laws limiting what doctors can do.  I'm just using the words you're posting.

8 minutes ago, NOTW said:

You said there should be no laws on abortion at all, that women and doctors can figure it out.  Now you're back pedaling and saying there can be laws limiting what doctors can do.  I'm just using the words you're posting.

No. You are taking my words and substituting your own. If there must be laws restricting abortion, then there has to be laws restricting every procedure. No surgery unless it falls within strict timelines set by government.

There are certain cases where you might want to consider extreme late term abortion. An example being a fetus with spina bifida. Parents could make the initial determination that they want to try and carry to term but in late stages come to the realization that the condition is getting worse and would pose significant risk to both the mother and child. Situations like that represent the vast majority of late term abortions. It's my understanding that it's extremely rare to find cases of women terminating pregnancies late simply because they don't want it. That decision is made well before then.

There's a really simple answer -- don't change the precedent that has stood for almost 50 years. 

20 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

There's a really simple answer -- don't change the precedent that has stood for almost 50 years. 

but what if evangelicals really really really want it?

would that change your mind? 

30 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

There are certain cases where you might want to consider extreme late term abortion. An example being a fetus with spina bifida. Parents could make the initial determination that they want to try and carry to term but in late stages come to the realization that the condition is getting worse and would pose significant risk to both the mother and child. Situations like that represent the vast majority of late term abortions. It's my understanding that it's extremely rare to find cases of women terminating pregnancies late simply because they don't want it. That decision is made well before then.

It's my understanding that they legally can't get an abortion in the 3rd trimester except for medical necessity. The "I just don't feel like having a child" window ends with the first trimester.

8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

It's my understanding that they legally can't get an abortion in the 3rd trimester except for medical necessity. The "I just don't feel like having a child" window ends with the first trimester.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey moved it to 23-24 weeks based on viability and did away with Roe's trimester concept. 

Democrats admitting they want to kill more black babies. You can try to take the party out of the kkk, but you can’t take the kkk out of the party

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Democrats admitting they want to kill more black babies. You can try to take the party out of the kkk, but you can’t take the kkk out of the party

 

45 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Planned Parenthood v. Casey moved it to 23-24 weeks based on viability and did away with Roe's trimester concept. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Mississippi law at question before SCOTUS right now, is attempting to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

If SCOTUS rules in favor the Mississippi law, Georgia is already set to argue 6 weeks... Effectively states can set any limit they want. Abortion banned after conception, even.

5 hours ago, toolg said:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Mississippi law at question before SCOTUS right now, is attempting to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

If SCOTUS rules in favor the Mississippi law, Georgia is already set to argue 6 weeks... Effectively states can set any limit they want. Abortion banned after conception, even.

Which is fine.

There is no constitutional right to abortion, any more than there is a constitutional right to vote, and so constitutionally this is a matter for the states.

9 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Yeah, I've said before that I think Roe does a good job of finding some kind of compromise and that the basic tenet or using viability to determine legal life is standing on firm scientific ground and common sense.

Lets not pretend its based on science

8 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

There are certain cases where you might want to consider extreme late term abortion. An example being a fetus with spina bifida. Parents could make the initial determination that they want to try and carry to term but in late stages come to the realization that the condition is getting worse and would pose significant risk to both the mother and child. Situations like that represent the vast majority of late term abortions. It's my understanding that it's extremely rare to find cases of women terminating pregnancies late simply because they don't want it. That decision is made well before then.

Data or stfu.