• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

Phys251 said:
You and I both know that the "pro-life" movement is not at all about preventing abortions.
Click to expand...

:yawn: sure. And pro-choicers are only in it because they love sawing up little children while they scream inside the womb.



:roll: what idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Jason1776 said:
I think that just shows that the GOP no longer runs on principle or morals. The GOP needs to be defunded.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't have political parties in the first place.
 
Phys251 said:
You do? Great! Then I am sure you support Obama's childcare initiatives that he announced in the SOTU, plus other measures that support the lives and well-being of children and their parents. Right?
Click to expand...

Some of them. I'm a fan of his arguing to increase the child tax credit, and I think generally that providing maternity leave is wise, but worry about its' unintended negative effects (if women come with more expenses and risks, fewer of them will be hired in the first place). But I think the "$500 if both parents work" thing is kind of a dumb gimmick, and one that works to value women who earn income over those who raise their children full time. I have a problem with that.

Hey, I'm all in favor of reducing the number of abortions, IF it is done by proactively addressing the root causes of abortion and not reactively making it harder and harder for women to obtain abortions.
Click to expand...

The root cause of abortion is the act. The motivations can differ.
 
Lursa said:
Has nothing to do with abortion but I hate when ANY group of lawmakers in any party just pass something and 'work out the details later.' THat is crap. We saw a bunch of stuff like that when they tried to rush gun control laws on us. We just got stuck with one here in WA. We also just passed a school bill that we had no idea how we were going to fund. They actually said 'we'll figure that out later.' We did it with a pie in the sky monorail too. And then had to figure out had to do it.

They pass things they cant enforce and cant pay for and dont even know how to administer. And alot of it is 'feel good' legislation that doesnt really 'do' anything. Like changing the time limits for when women can have abortions. Feel good but of no value. They dont occur except for medical necessity. Canada has no time limits and have fewer abortions/population and few to no late term abortions.
Click to expand...

Do you feel that a woman should be seeking an abortion after 20 weeks?
 
j-mac said:
Do you feel that a woman should be seeking an abortion after 20 weeks?
Click to expand...

The point is, they dont.

Those are 1.2% of all abortions and they are done to save the life of the mother or in the case of a severely defective fetus.

Women do not seek 'casual' abortions after that time because it amounts to induced labor. Just as painful and sometimes more dangerous. The anesthetized, dead fetus must still be delivered vaginally. Just like a late stillbirth. If you can provide some data on how many of these occur, please share it.

My personal feelings should not matter in this discussion but no, I dont think she should seek an abortion that's not medically necessary after viability but to me, anyone that would would make a horrible mother. But that is judgement and doesnt belong in this type of discussion. I base my views on facts and results.

So as I posted earlier, I dont believe in useless, 'feel-good' legislation and I certainly dont believe in bigger govt. I'm surprised at the level of intrusion into people's lives and bigger govt that so many conservatives support on this issue.
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: sure. And pro-choicers are only in it because they love sawing up little children while they scream inside the womb.
Click to expand...

I note that you ignored my response to your glib and innaccurate characterization of poverty.

So humane of you to think the govt should demand it of women that get pregnant and then just leave their to grow up like this, with a greater likelihood of becoming less educated, more criminal, and more of a burden on society financially in general.

cpwill said:
This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Have you ever lived in a poor community? Surrounded by constant fear and predators and trying to keep your kids not only safe but from joining it? Trying to just get them to finish school and get out? I used to do education in inner city schools and parks. It's not just about occasionally being hungry. :(
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: sure. And pro-choicers are only in it because they love sawing up little children while they scream inside the womb.
Click to expand...

Stop messing with my hobby!
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: it's a % increase. You could apply it equally across all operations if you wanted to use that theoretical, but the only place to know is to take the funding away and then see what they cut.
Click to expand...

:shrug: It's silly to think they need more of any of the things I named, plus alot of other infrastructure just for abortion. That's a desperate reach.

Not worth seriously considering but it is a common talking point from those objecting to abortion....another one of those things that 'sounds good' but doesnt really make a difference.
 
Lursa said:
The point is, they dont.

Those are 1.2% of all abortions and they are done to save the life of the mother or in the case of a severely defective fetus.

Women do not seek 'casual' abortions after that time because it amounts to induced labor. Just as painful and sometimes more dangerous. The anesthetized, dead fetus must still be delivered vaginally. Just like a late stillbirth. If you can provide some data on how many of these occur, please share it.

My personal feelings should not matter in this discussion but no, I dont think she should seek an abortion that's not medically necessary after viability but to me, anyone that would would make a horrible mother. But that is judgement and doesnt belong in this type of discussion. I base my views on facts and results.

So as I posted earlier, I dont believe in useless, 'feel-good' legislation and I certainly dont believe in bigger govt. I'm surprised at the level of intrusion into people's lives and bigger govt that so many conservatives support on this issue.
Click to expand...

It's easy to loose sight of what you are talking about when you try to use percentages to describe what is taking place here....using your number of 1.2% that would account for somewhere around 15,000 abortions would it not? Think about that...15,000 people....Most of which, IMHO, are out of convenience....So, you really want to go down the "morals" road?
 
Kobie said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Artical 3, Section 2, peragraph 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

​Congress can just take away the Supreme Court's right to hear any abortion case when the case comes to the Supreme Court on an appetite basis, as they all do, including Roe v. Wade. This is true for free speech, gun ownership, etc. Literally any right can be stripped with such a Congressional act and there's nothing the Supreme Court could do about it. This is where armed citizens come into the picture to set things right....
 
j-mac said:
It's easy to loose sight of what you are talking about when you try to use percentages to describe what is taking place here....using your number of 1.2% that would account for somewhere around 15,000 abortions would it not? Think about that...15,000 people....Most of which, IMHO, are out of convenience....So, you really want to go down the "morals" road?
Click to expand...

No...you misread. THose 1.2% are 'medically necessary.' To save the mother's life, to prevent her kidneys from failing, to terminate a severely defective fetus.

I thought I made that quite clear in my post. So you think those 15,000 women arent people? Or you just consider their lives and health 'conveniences?'

Lursa said:
The point is, they dont.

Those are 1.2% of all abortions and they are done to save the life of the mother or in the case of a severely defective fetus.

Women do not seek 'casual' abortions after that time because it amounts to induced labor. Just as painful and sometimes more dangerous. The anesthetized, dead fetus must still be delivered vaginally. Just like a late stillbirth. If you can provide some data on how many of these occur, please share it.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to go down the "morals" road?
 
Lursa said:
No...you misread. THose 1.2% are 'medically necessary.' To save the mother's life, to prevent her kidneys from failing, to terminate a severely defective fetus.

I thought I made that quite clear in my post. So you think those 15,000 women arent people? Or you just consider their lives and health 'conveniences?'
Click to expand...

Those women can defend themselves...Their babies can't
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: sure. And pro-choicers are only in it because they love sawing up little children while they scream inside the womb.



:roll: what idiocy.
Click to expand...

Now, now. No need for the childishness. We had something good going; let's try and get back to that.

cpwill said:
Some of them. I'm a fan of his arguing to increase the child tax credit, and I think generally that providing maternity leave is wise, but worry about its' unintended negative effects (if women come with more expenses and risks, fewer of them will be hired in the first place). But I think the "$500 if both parents work" thing is kind of a dumb gimmick, and one that works to value women who earn income over those who raise their children full time. I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Alright, raising the child tax credit. That is a good start. Let's perhaps cap that increase at a certain number, say, 4 or 5, to avoid rewarding families such as the Duggars.

The root cause of abortion is the act. The motivations can differ.
Click to expand...

...
 
Jerry said:
Artical 3, Section 2, peragraph 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

​Congress can just take away the Supreme Court's right to hear any abortion case when the case comes to the Supreme Court on an appetite basis, as they all do, including Roe v. Wade. This is true for free speech, gun ownership, etc. Literally any right can be stripped with such a Congressional act and there's nothing the Supreme Court could do about it. This is where armed citizens come into the picture to set things right....
Click to expand...

894.gif


Yeah, no thanks, I'd rather not live in a nation where the solution advocated is to shoot it out.
 
j-mac said:
It's easy to loose sight of what you are talking about when you try to use percentages to describe what is taking place here....using your number of 1.2% that would account for somewhere around 15,000 abortions would it not? Think about that...15,000 people....Most of which, IMHO, are out of convenience....So, you really want to go down the "morals" road?
Click to expand...

Did you not read what Lursa posted about abortions that take place at or after 20 weeks gestations?

When an abortion takes place that late it puts the woman's life at risk.
Any woman in her right mind would not choose to go through an abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation unless the fetus health or her health was in danger.
At that stage the woman still has go through labor and delivery ...

only the labor is not natural it is induced and since the fetus is already dead ( before an abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation starts the fetus has to be given a fatal injection into its heart) the induced labor that takes place it is much harder on the woman's body, the abortion is more likely to cause injury to woman's cervix possibly causing a lot of pain and perhaps even a life threatening infection which would be very rare in a live birth delivery.

Convenience? No! There is no way one could ever consider an abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation a convenience.

Let me tell you I have given birth to 4 children and when my 3rd child who was 10 pounds and one ounce was delivered with no meds because he was stressed with the cord wrapped around his neck that labor and delivery did not cause me as much pain as the miscarriage ( no induction it was a natural miscarriage ) I had at about 20 weeks gestation of my malformed little one.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Did you not read what Lursa posted about abortions that take place at or after 20 weeks gestations?

When an abortion takes place that late it puts the woman's life at risk.
Any woman in her right mind would never want to go through an abortion at 20 weeks gestation.
At stage the woman still has go through labor and delivery ...

only the labor is not natural it is induced and since the fetus is already dead ( before an abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation starts the fetus has to be given a fatal injection into its heart) the induction of labor that takes place it is much harder on the woman's body, the abortion is more likely to cause injury to woman's cervix possibly causing a lot of pain and perhaps even a life threatening infection which would be very rare in a live birth delivery.

Convenience? No! There is no way one could ever consider an abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation a convenience.

Let me tell you I have given birth to 4 children and when my 3rd child who was 10 pounds and ounce was delivered with no meds because he was stressed with the cord wrapped around his neck that deliverers did not cause me as much pain as the miscarriage I had at about 20 weeks gestation of my malformed little one.
Click to expand...

Uh huh....No disrespect minnie, but your experience is irrelevant here.
 
j-mac said:
Those women can defend themselves...Their babies can't
Click to expand...

And your point is? Women deserve to die or have permanent health damage but the unborn dont?

Is there a reason you feel the unborn is more deserving of life or health than a born person?
 
j-mac said:
Uh huh....No disrespect minnie, but your experience is irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

Why? Real life examples are valid ways of illustrating a point arent they?

not only that, she elaborated on the consequences of the induced labor after 20 weeks that I described.
 
j-mac said:
Uh huh....No disrespect minnie, but your experience is irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

I out of about 20 pregnancies ihas genetic abnormalities.
I was unlucky I had a pregnancy that became a malformed fetus.
I was lucky that it died and miscarried naturally so that I did not not have to have a life saving abortion.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Uh huh....No disrespect minnie, but your experience is irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

Okay. That facepalm gif in post #115? I need about fifty of them here.

And the forum rules prohibit me from saying what I feel like telling you right now.
 
Phys251 said:
Okay. That facepalm gif in post #115? I need about fifty of them here.

And the forum rules prohibit me from saying what I feel like telling you right now.
Click to expand...

Not only that, 3/4 of her response was detailed medical information about the topic at hand, not her personal experience.

So he dismissed 3/4 of her post without addressing it.
 
That story she spams in almost every thread. It's always irrelevant.

This is the first one in which she's admitted direct responsibility for killing other people's kids. That's much more interesting at this point.
 
Phys251 said:
Okay. That facepalm gif in post #115? I need about fifty of them here.

And the forum rules prohibit me from saying what I feel like telling you right now.
Click to expand...

And I should give a ****, why?
 
JayDubya said:
That story she spams in almost every thread. It's always irrelevant.

This is the first one in which she's admitted direct responsibility for killing other people's kids. That's much more interesting at this point.
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
And I should give a ****, why?
Click to expand...

Slow clap for the arrogance and tone-deafness that you two are showing. If you two boys would set your pride aside and actually listen to her for a change, she might not have to keep repeating herself! But I guess you two know how to govern her body more than she does. And there's nothing at all creepy about that. /snark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom