Senate Abortion: Why not?

He's religious and has mentioned it several times. At least he has the sense to not proselytize or use scripture in his arguments, even though religion is clearly a major influence on his politics.

 

I stand corrected, then.

 

I’ll never understand the mindset of people who say, with a straight face, that a red blob the size of a fingernail has as many human rights as an actual human.

 

While I agree wholeheartedly, the inverse corollary of the above statement has more meaning for me; namely, how one fully-formed and sentient human being can so easily justify devaluing others who fail to adhere to their particular set of beliefs. The J-Rods of the world will go to the mat to defend the unborn whilst simultaneously justifying violence against illegal immigrants (for example).

Such thinking is totally alien to me. Either all life is equal or it’s not. J-Rod claims to believe the former, yet to him, some life is more equal than others.

 

I think the line is easily defined. While the fetus is occupying the womb, and thus is utterly dependent on the mother’s body, her rights override that of the fetus. Only once it’s born does the new baby acquire the same rights as any other human.

Also, it should go without saying that no human, unborn or otherwise, has the right to use another’s body without their permission. I don’t have to donate my kidney to someone even if they’ll die without it.

 

I like how when asked to actually specify the specific factor that is being used, he either intentionally or unintentionally simply didn't answer that question, and so when asked "what is it" in reference to the criteria, instead answered that a zyogote is a human life like that's an answer.


And "as a doctor, you should really know what's going on" is an incredibly stupid argument tactically from someone that can't actually back up their claims from a scientific or medical framework. It's basically highlighting that the person saying you're wrong is more informed on the topic.

 

He's using the standard anti-abortion rhetoric, which is to try to convince non-believers using reasoning that they themselves don't believe in - J-Rod, of all people, tsk-tsking Vaderize for being educated but having the 'wrong' view of abortion is ****ing ridiculous, considering his utter contempt for higher education.

 

You’re looking for distinct categorisation when there fundamentally isn’t one, and you’re uncomfortable with human beings creating one ourselves upon non-religious terms. You already accept that the grouping of cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy is not the equivalent of a human being. You don’t hold funerals every time the pregnancy fails in the earliest of stages. You don’t have 50 brothers and sisters who we regard as having been ‘people.’ You even know it would be insulting to compare the failure of a pregnancy in the first couple weeks or months to losing a child.

The uncomfortable truth is that personhood doesn’t start at conception and it probably doesn’t only begin at birth. Therefore you have to decide upon some point between conception and birth when personhood begins. You ignore this problem, hypocritically, by saying it’s ‘all human life’ even though you don’t treat it all as human life with the same rights. So you’re avoiding the actual discussion.

 

You don't even really need to do that. The anti-abortion fanatics constantly make this claim about "abortion until birth" or (ridiculously) "post-live abortion" which is crazy because the people who have third-trimester abortions aren't people who wanted to have abortions in the first place. Those are generally people who wanted their unborn child to be born (likely having bought things, picked names, gotten ready) and something's gone catastrophically wrong.

EDIT: For clarity...

Fewer than 1% of abortions happen in the third-trimester, and because of GOP policies there are only four (not a typo) doctors in all of the US who perform third-trimester abortions, out of the just-over one million total doctors in the US. There were five, but one was George Tiller, whom I'm sure J-Rod fondly recalls...

 

Generally we accept that there is a line where abortions are permitted at the complete discretion of the mother (I.e. they don’t need to disclose a reason), however, yes, there are exceptional circumstances where abortions are allowed after this period.

I think there is a different justification for each though is what I’m trying to say. For the former it is allowed because we accept that it is not yet reached the threshold of ‘personhood,’ whilst the latter is allowed because there is a medical reason which justifies it (whatever that may be).

Effectively this is the approach taken by all pro-choice people.

 

True, but many new (and old) GOP laws now in force require either burial of 'fetal remains' and/or reporting of loss of pregnancy to one's local police department.

We could even make a show about it--Law and Order: MPU (Missed Period Unit).

Not only that, but I will gladly point out again for the J-Rod's of the world that hospital by-laws do not permit elective terminations of pregnancies on their campuses anywhere in the United States. Only tertiary care centers are even equipped to handle said procedures, which require a team of physicians and nurses working closely together in the OR. That simply doesn't happen without a compelling, and often urgent, medical need. It certainly doesn't occur electively.

 

I haven't really been paying attention, but I have noticed the terms. "Innocent human beings", "human rights", "how can this be a question in 2022". All obviously badly aped from Democrats.

 

Every time a couple has a miscarriage they and their OBGYN get a visit from homicide detectives. Go America.

 

As long as it’s Detectives Benson and Stabler, I’m cool.

 

Women, doctors, and local political leaders.

 

I’m supposed to see my gastroenterologist next month, but might have to reschedule since my local district rep will be in Harrisburg that day.

 

Turns out that California has a state measure/proposition on the ballot that would expressly include abortion (and contraception) in the fundamental rights that the California Constitution guarantees.

Those that are opposed to it say that this allows late-term abortions and doesn't block funds from going to abortions. I'm not seeing the problem.

 

You're not gonna believe this...

A GOP appointed judge who tried to stop the abortion plan from being on the ballot...yep...paid for ex-wife to have an abortion.

 

Why would I not believe the projection and hypocrisy of republicans?

 

https://people.com/health/texas-wom...fter-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/

1. This boils my blood.
2. Unfortunately, it will need to happen to someone wealthy or important before people consider that we may need to change the laws.

This is the scenario I have talked about in my own practice: a pregnant woman comes in for something unrelated, there’s a pregnancy complication, care is rendered, and physicians and nurses are prosecuted. Our service used to admit patients early in pregnancy, but I have been pushing for every admitted patient to go directly to the OB service instead of merely having them on in consultation. And I live in Pennsylvania, where abortion for the moment remains legal. Under the Texas law, I could be sued if I treat a patient who subsequently miscarries, regardless of the reason.

There are tough times ahead.

 

... that's just... I got nothing, that is incredibly messed up.

 

This is messed up. As many people die of heart disease as people get abortions. So if you value life prove it. Don't through your personal idiotic believes out in the airwaves and preach it if you don't care to begin with let alone have any understanding about woman reproductive systems or just any basic moral compass at all.

 

Rape panels

Hines “wants victims of rape and incest to be allowed to get an abortion on a case-by-case basis through a community-level review process outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.”