Stake your position on abortion

[Chef Jim]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And/or they can simply drive to a state where abortion will still be available on demand.  That's all this case is really about.

 

I don't agree with that.  It's not easy to just pack up and travel to a state that allows them.  If you're state outlaws abortion (and I disagree with outlawing them) you move to a state that allows them. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I don't agree with that.  It's not easy to just pack up and travel to a state that allows them.  If you're state outlaws abortion (and I disagree with outlawing them) you move to a state that allows them. 

 

 

Why pack and move your entire life? I assume you’re not planning on using abortion as birth control, so it shouldn’t become a regular  thing. 

[Irv]

On 12/6/2021 at 10:44 AM, Tiberius said:

Soon Mississippi, a "pro-life" state, will ban abortions, so that should make you happy. This is the same state that refused to expand medicare for the poor, ranks dead last in infant mortality and ranks dead last in child hunger. Pro-life my butt. They just want to harass people under the guise of some "Christian morality" Blah 

 

More often than not, you divert the focus from the current topic to some other idea you have.  Repeatedly mentioing Trump when other topics are being discussed.  This is another example of that.  Can you address my original thought?  How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

[Tiberius]

31 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

More often than not, you divert the focus from the current topic to some other idea you have.  Repeatedly mentioing Trump when other topics are being discussed.  This is another example of that.  Can you address my original thought?  How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

How often does that happen? Do you have any examples of that taking place? 

 

I'd say that if it's a full baby, and the mother's life is not in danger its wrong. 

[B-Man]

 

 

1 hour ago, Irv said:

How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

I'd say that if it's a full baby, and the mother's life is not in danger its wrong. 

 

 

Good.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have admitted that it is a baby inside the mother,

 

now we are just arguing about when it is okay to murder it or not.

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Good.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have admitted that it is a baby inside the mother,

 

now we are just arguing about when it is okay to murder it or not.

 

 

 

 

At 9 months???? Ya, ok. 

 

So how about at 9 weeks? 

[BillStime]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Good.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have admitted that it is a baby inside the mother,

 

now we are just arguing about when it is okay to murder it or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Enough. Why do you not care about the kids being shot in schools?

 

What is your cult doing to stop that?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

A Science Lesson for Justice Sotomayor

 

Does Justice Sonia Sotomayor even read the briefs in cases before the Supreme Court?

 

I ask because the cases don't come any bigger than Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which addresses Mississippi's limit on abortion after 15 weeks. The Court is being asked to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I joined two other female physicians (a neonatologist and an obstetrician) in an amicus brief detailing advances in fetal science that have happened since 1973.

 

During oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor displayed abysmal ignorance of the most basic scientific and medical facts about developing human life.

 

The exchange came right after Mississippi's solicitor general Scott Stewart argued it was no longer appropriate to use fetal viability (the gestational age at which a prematurely-born infant can survive in an intensive care unit) as the point after which states can protect an unborn child from elective abortion. He said this was due—in part—to 30 years of medical advances. In a piqued, incredulous tone, Sotomayor demanded to know just "What are the advancements in medicine?" As Stewart began to list them, mentioning new knowledge of fetal pain, the Justice abruptly cut him off.

 

Our brief and others document the medical and scientific advances Mr. Stewart was referring to, in language easily accessible to lay people and rigorously sourced in the latest scientific journals and currently accepted medical practices. It's there for anyone with eyes—or the will—to see.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/a-science-lesson-for-justice-sotomayor-opinion/ar-AARwkJ7

 

 

 

 

 

[Irv]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Enough. Why do you not care about the kids being shot in schools?

 

What is your cult doing to stop that?

 

 

 

More often than not, you divert the focus from the current topic to some other idea you have.  Repeatedly mentioing Trump when other topics are being discussed.  This is another example of that.  Can you address my original thought?  How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Enough. Why do you not care about the kids being shot in schools?

 

What is your cult doing to stop that?

 

 

Come on Hilary! You were in Washington for DECADES….what did you do about any of it?

[B-Man]

 

 

If the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, What Happens?

By Larry Elder

 

 

The Supreme Court, in a case involving abortion, may, repeat, may overturn or at least dramatically cut back the scope of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that invalidated all states' anti-abortion laws. Sixteen years ago, I wrote the following:

 

NBC's Tim Russert quoted Justice Antonin Scalia, saying, "(Scalia's quote) may surprise some people: ... 'If a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law. ... I have religious views on the subject, but they have nothing whatever to do with my job.'"

 

Note Russert's assertion that this "may surprise some people."

 

This "surprise" is because leftists in academia, mainstream media and Hollywood confuse people on the issue. Roe did not legalize abortion. Rather, the Court discovered a "right to privacy" -- nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

 

After John Roberts' nomination to become a Supreme Court justice, a Los Angeles Times reporter wrote: "The president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion emphasis added)." Legalized abortion?

 

Our Founding Fathers restricted the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government, leaving the remainder to the people and to the states themselves. This includes abortion.

 

{snip}

 

 

In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost nonexistence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

 

Despite NOW's support, regular Americans appear wary of Roe's scope. Yes, according to a recent CBS poll, 59% of Americans call Roe a "good thing." But when pressed more specifically, people give answers that change the picture dramatically. Only 25% want abortion on demand -- effectively the Roe position. Fourteen percent want abortion permitted with more restrictions; 38% want abortions permitted in cases of rape, ***** and to save women's lives; 15% want abortion permitted only to save women's lives; and 3% want abortion not permitted at all. When added together, 70% want greater, not fewer, restrictions on abortion.

 

With a reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court says this: Where the Constitution fails to provide a specific empowerment for the federal government -- butt out.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2021/12/09/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-what-happens-n2600340

 

 

 

 

Now that may surprise some people.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

21 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

Bonnie - can you think of any laws that give the government power to make decisions about the male body?

[B-Man]

 

 

Could have gone under the "Lefties are Mentally Disturbed" thread also

 

 

Planned Parenthood Action argues that restricting or banning abortion that specifically targets minority communities is racist

 

 

But now that Roe v. Wade may once again hang in the balance, Planned Parenthood really needs to up their game.

And what better way is there to convince people than to cry “racism”?

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2021/12/13/planned-parenthood-action-argues-that-restricting-or-banning-abortion-that-specifically-targets-minority-communities-is-racist/

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Black Americans are 14% of the population.

 

Black babies are 38% of those killed by abortions.

 

Planned Parenthood is racist.

 

 

[B-Man]

😡

 

Oh, those thorny babies!

 

I'm reading "Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates/Babies are surviving earlier in pregnancy than ever before, complicating the debate over fetal viability at issue in the Mississippi abortion case before the high court" (WaPo).

 

Many hospitals have held firm to a 23- to 24-week line, and, as a matter of policy, do not provide lifesaving care to babies under that gestational age, arguing it’s unethical to subject a baby, parents and medical providers to such procedures, only to have the child die. But a growing number are offering aggressive treatment to babies in that difficult 22- to 23-week “gray zone,” — or even younger...

 

 

Click for more »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/17/premature-birth-viability-abortion/

 

 

The comments over there are what I expected.

 

Highest-rated: "It complicates nothing. The woman decides. 'Religious' folks need to mind their own beeswax."

Also: "Not that complicated. A women gets pregnant and decides to abort. It's simple actually. Only religion zealots think it's complicated.

 

So if science shows that the baby is viable........that changes nothing, kill it.

 

 that's where we are.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

NY Times: Pre-natal tests for genetic disorders are inaccurate about 85% of the time

by John Sexton

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/upshot/pregnancy-birth-genetic-testing.html

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/01/01/ny-times-pre-natal-tests-for-genetic-disorders-are-inaccurate-about-85-of-the-time-n438796

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

NY Times: Pre-natal tests for genetic disorders are inaccurate about 85% of the time

by John Sexton

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/upshot/pregnancy-birth-genetic-testing.html

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/01/01/ny-times-pre-natal-tests-for-genetic-disorders-are-inaccurate-about-85-of-the-time-n438796

 

 

 

This doesn’t seem like a story one would expect from this outlet

[Tiberius]

Look at you guys praising and posting The NY Times and Wash Post! The American media can’t be trusted?