Just now, jsdarkstar said:

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

Yeah, they suck.  Call them Fascists.

41 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

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?

This is impossible unfortunately. Both sides have groups that will be upset about any compromise. 

52 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

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?

I think the one we lived with for 50 years was as close as we are going to get. 

6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

This is impossible unfortunately. Both sides have groups that will be upset about any compromise. 

Then the argument should be to let states decide and people can live where they agree if the issue is that important to them. A very inferior solution to a federal law, but maybe it has the be part of the evolution as a society

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I think the one we lived with for 50 years was as close as we are going to get. 

Except we didnt live with it. We fought constantly over it

12 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Then the argument should be to let states decide and people can live where they agree if the issue is that important to them. A very inferior solution to a federal law, but maybe it has the be part of the evolution as a society

Why get the state involved? Let individuals and their doctors decide and let people go to offices and practices that align with their beliefs. Don't force a doc or patient to do something they disagree with. 

41 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Then the argument should be to let states decide and people can live where they agree if the issue is that important to them. A very inferior solution to a federal law, but maybe it has the be part of the evolution as a society

Except we didnt live with it. We fought constantly over it

You don't seem very libertarian.

53 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I think the one we lived with for 50 years was as close as we are going to get. 

Agreed

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Except we didnt live with it. We fought constantly over it

agreed, thing is there are tons of hypocrites in the gop who had abortions while fighting against it. 

 

2 hours 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. 

Nah, I think there has to be some law.  There has to be a point in time in a pregnancy where even people who are pro choice say, "ok once you make it to this point, you can no longer have a no excuse abortion. Now the only reason can be for a medical necessity".  

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Nah, I think there has to be some law.  There has to be a point in time in a pregnancy where even people who are pro choice say, "ok once you make it to this point, you can no longer have a no excuse abortion. Now the only reason can be for a medical necessity".  

when the kid turns 5. 

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

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

Yes. And I believe parents can make medical choices for their children. 

Quote

You're not a human till you're in my phone book. There. My hat is now in the political ring.

 

2 hours 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 to play devil's advocate, you'd be fine with someone who is 38 weeks pregnant having an abortion.  It's her decision and none of the government's business?

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Nah, I think there has to be some law.  There has to be a point in time in a pregnancy where even people who are pro choice say, "ok once you make it to this point, you can no longer have a no excuse abortion. Now the only reason can be for a medical necessity".  

I believe that women, along with their family, doctors, and their support system, can determine when abortion is the best course of action, due to a medical necessity, or rape, or whatever. I do not believe the law needs to be involved in the process at all.

Just now, toolg said:

I believe that women, along with their family, doctors, and their support system, can determine when abortion is the best course of action, due to a medical necessity, or rape, or whatever. I do not believe the law needs to be involved in the process at all.

But it absolutely does.  Unless you want someone like Kermit Gosnell to be a legal practitioner of medicine....

There has to be a point in a pregnancy where there is a cutoff where "unplanned pregnancy" is no longer a legally valid reason for abortion. 

1 minute ago, toolg said:

I believe that women, along with their family, doctors, and their support system, can determine when abortion is the best course of action, due to a medical necessity, or rape, or whatever. I do not believe the law needs to be involved in the process at all.

most of the western world disagrees; virtually every western nation has laws that protect a woman's right to an abortion up to a point (often 15 weeks) after which it becomes available out of medical necessity.

that's the compromise both sides need to accept but never will. 

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So to play devil's advocate, you'd be fine with someone who is 38 weeks pregnant having an abortion.  It's her decision and none of the government's business?

Yes. A woman who is 38 weeks will undergo induced labor. Typically it will result in a live birth, unless the fetus is unviable.

Just now, toolg said:

Yes. A woman who is 38 weeks will undergo induced labor. Typically it will result in a live birth, unless the fetus is unviable.

Right, so what if the woman decides she doesn't want to have the baby anymore.  You'd be fine with someone who is 38 weeks pregnant deciding to terminate the pregnancy?  No medical issues or anything.    Just a voluntary termination of the pregnancy.  You'd be ok with that?

14 minutes ago, toolg said:

Yes. And I believe parents can make medical choices for their children.

 

4 minutes ago, toolg said:

I believe that women, along with their family, doctors, and their support system, can determine when abortion is the best course of action, due to a medical necessity, or rape, or whatever. I do not believe the law needs to be involved in the process at all.

 

Are you in favor of having no laws or regulations in place to regulate parental and medical care of both their born and unborn children?

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

Right, so what if the woman decides she doesn't want to have the baby anymore.  You'd be fine with someone who is 38 weeks pregnant deciding to terminate the pregnancy?  No medical issues or anything.    Just a voluntary termination of the pregnancy.  You'd be ok with that?

Yes. She can choose to end the pregnancy at 38 weeks. Happens all the time. The child can go for adoption. There are ways for the mother to surrender the child.

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

Yes. She can choose to end the pregnancy at 38 weeks. Happens all the time. The child can go for adoption. There are ways for the mother to surrender the child.

That's not an abortion, which is the question that was posed.

Terminating the pregnancy at 38 weeks = killing a viable baby inside a woman's belly.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Are you in favor of having no laws or regulations in place to regulate parental and medical care of both their born and unborn children?

Yes. I believe experts should be directing those regulations. Not politicians. Like this: https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Terminating the pregnancy at 38 weeks = killing a viable baby inside a woman's belly.

That's wrong. Terminating a pregnancy at 38 weeks is going to result in a live birth. Unless the fetus in unviable or there's some freak complication. 

13 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Are you in favor of having no laws or regulations in place to regulate parental and medical care of both their born and unborn children?

I want experts in charge of those regulations. Not politicians. Like this: https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare

Quote

Like all medical matters, decisions regarding abortion should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers and without undue interference by outside parties.

 

So you don’t want Lindsey Graham (who has never been married or had kids) deciding if women can get an abortion or not?  

My only thought about inducing labor at 38 weeks because a woman wants to "terminate the pregnancy” is that it’s a terrible idea.  They give women powerful drugs like Pitocin and sometimes they don’t even work that well.