This argument is rather dumb.

Of course being pregnant carries higher risk to the mother than being not pregnant. Does that need to be spelled out? I suppose in law it does because somebody will try to thread that needle.

I'm a proponent of no excuse abortions through 20 weeks because I believe in bodily autonomy and reject the emotional arguments around fetal rights. 

But it's clear the intent of at least some of these laws is to protect a pregnant woman's right to an abortion if a pregnancy results in a life threatening situation for her, which a normal pregnancy would not.

Trying to argue that the state of being pregnant in and of itself is a measurable life threatening event is dumb.

16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This argument is rather dumb.

Of course being pregnant carries higher risk to the mother than being not pregnant. Does that need to be spelled out? I suppose in law it does because somebody will try to thread that needle.

I'm a proponent of no excuse abortions through 20 weeks because I believe in bodily autonomy and reject the emotional arguments around fetal rights. 

But it's clear the intent of at least some of these laws is to protect a pregnant woman's right to an abortion if a pregnancy results in a life threatening situation for her, which a normal pregnancy would not.

Trying to argue that the state of being pregnant in and of itself is a measurable life threatening event is dumb.

This.

 

29 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

No. Being pregnant IS a condition that carries significant risk. Nine months of continued, and possibly deadly risks.

Quite a bit more than you having lunch.

Then once again, why are you criticizing the law then?  The law makes an exception for risk to the mother. And therefore anyone who wants an abortion can get one using this logic. 

Or, as other posters have pointed out, the intent of the law is to have an exception for a complication in the pregnancy which presents a risk to the mother's life beyond the normal expected risk of a normal pregnancy. 

Hence why this woman had to leave the state to have an abortion.   

So much for it being about States' rights....

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham proposes nationwide 15-week abortion ban

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/lindsey-graham-abortion-ban-bill-nationwide/

 

1 minute ago, toolg said:

 

allowing women into the press conference is an obvious oversight.

I'm sure they'll correct that for future press conferences.

1 hour ago, Tweek said:

So much for it being about States' rights....

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham proposes nationwide 15-week abortion ban

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/lindsey-graham-abortion-ban-bill-nationwide/

It's not about states' rights. That was a lie. Republicans like Graham want a nationwide ban.

22 minutes ago, toolg said:

It's not about states' rights. That was a lie. Republicans like Graham want a nationwide ban.

Yup and been saying since day 1 but people I've talked to said it wouldnt happen.

Not sure the thought process here, it's been made clear this is bad for the midterms and some GQP ha e bee scrubbing their stance on it from their sites yet here Graham is basically solidifying he wants to take away women's rights (like he's ever even seen a VeeJayJay)

 

 

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Then once again, why are you criticizing the law then?  The law makes an exception for risk to the mother. And therefore anyone who wants an abortion can get one using this logic. 

Or, as other posters have pointed out, the intent of the law is to have an exception for a complication in the pregnancy which presents a risk to the mother's life beyond the normal expected risk of a normal pregnancy. 

Hence why this woman had to leave the state to have an abortion.   

The law is stupid, stupidly applied, and has taken a very personal, private decision of the person that is most involved, and given it to the government.

You are against the law, you said. I really have no idea why you keep arguing with me about it.

10 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

The law is stupid, stupidly applied, and has taken a very personal, private decision of the person that is most involved, and given it to the government.

You are against the law, you said. I really have no idea why you keep arguing with me about it.

Because you decided to add your own made up details to the case and imply that she had a complication that put her life at risk and was going to die if she didn’t have an abortion.

Its like with people who make up stuff about Trump to make him look bad (the tax write off for the burial grounds being the latest example).   He makes himself look bad enough with all the stuff he actually does.  There’s no need to make up things, just take the real stuff and go with it.  

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Because you decided to add your own made up details to the case and imply that she had a complication that put her life at risk and was going to die if she didn’t have an abortion.

Its like with people who make up stuff about Trump to make him look bad (the tax write off for the burial grounds being the latest example).   He makes himself look bad enough with all the stuff he actually does.  There’s no need to make up things, just take the real stuff and go with it.  

No. I said nothing about her having a complication.

10 hours ago, toolg said:

It's not about states' rights. That was a lie. Republicans like Graham want a nationwide ban.

I'm against his proposal but it isn't exactly a "ban".  Also, I'm going to assume you'd be ok with a federal law on this issue if it was the right law OR are you in favor of the States calling the shots?

11 hours ago, Toastrel said:

No. I said nothing about her having a complication.

 

On 9/12/2022 at 12:40 PM, Toastrel said:

Woman carrying fetus without a skull to seek abortion in another state following Louisiana ban

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-woman-carrying-fetus-skull-seek-abortion-another-state-rcna45005

So what if it kills the mother? RIGHT TO LIFE!!

 

This is what happens when you let POLITICIANS become doctors.

You literally went straight to "what if this kills her!!!!!!!" and then when pressed to "well technically, all pregnancies' have a risk".  

 

Obvious back peddle is obvious.

7 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm against his proposal but it isn't exactly a "ban".  Also, I'm going to assume you'd be ok with a federal law on this issue if it was the right law OR are you in favor of the States calling the shots?

I don't want any law - Federal or State - other than to protect a woman's right to privacy. It is a private issue between a patient and her doctor. 

6 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

how do you feel on same sex marriage?

Why do you want to know?

33 minutes ago, toolg said:

I don't want any law - Federal or State - other than to protect a woman's right to privacy. It is a private issue between a patient and her doctor. 

That’s my interpretation as well. Abortion is protected by the constitution.

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Abortion is a medical procedure and it’s none of the government’s business.

32 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

how do you feel on same sex marriage?

Government should not force churches to marry anyone. That said, secular marriage is a contract between 2 people. It’s not the role of government to decide which 2 people can enter into a contract and which cannot.

37 minutes ago, toolg said:

I don't want any law - Federal or State - other than to protect a woman's right to privacy. It is a private issue between a patient and her doctor. 

Surely at some point there is a third individual to consider, right? 

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

That’s my interpretation as well. Abortion is protected by the constitution.

Abortion is a medical procedure and it’s none of the government’s business.

So long as you dont consider the child a person with said rights

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

So long as you dont consider the child a person with said rights

Clearly they become just that at some point. The question is when. 

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

So long as you dont consider the child a person with said rights

Exactly, which until they are viable, they aren’t.  Can you claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes? No, so the government doesn’t consider them a person either.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Exactly, which until they are viable, they aren’t.  Can you claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes? No, so the government doesn’t consider them a person either.

Thats your opinion. One many do not share. You can be charged with murder for their death. So yes the govt does consider them a person in some context

so how do you propose a compromise that everyone can tolerate?

On 9/12/2022 at 12:40 PM, Toastrel said:

Woman carrying fetus without a skull to seek abortion in another state following Louisiana ban

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-woman-carrying-fetus-skull-seek-abortion-another-state-rcna45005

So what if it kills the mother? RIGHT TO LIFE!!

 

This is what happens when you let POLITICIANS become doctors.

Arrest her and charge her with the murder of her unborn fetus and charge the doctor with murder as well. 

Nothing like White Christian Nationalism, dictating women's health care.

8 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Arrest her and charge her with the murder of her unborn fetus and charge the doctor with murder as well. 

Nothing like White Christian Nationalism, dictating women's health care.

I can tell you one sure-fire way to look the Roe gift horse in the mouth and that's to frame it as a racial thing and blame it on white people.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I can tell you one sure-fire way to look the Roe gift horse in the mouth and that's to frame it as a racial thing and blame it on white people.

WCN is growing inside the GOP like a fetus. See the CPAC conference in Florida or the America First Political Action Conference. They believe the bible should dictate policy and anti abortion - pro life, is at the top of the WCN hit list. These conferences unfortunately signal that Christian nationalism remains a serious political threat in the United States.

https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/38532-cpac-gathering-a-horror-show-of-christian-nationalism