General Political Thread: News, Slander & Debate

[Pete]

Can’t overturn the military. They’re the biggest push behind most technology and innovation. I’m fine with taking that private, too.

And isn’t pbs publically funded? That’s what their commercials say. (But again - fear)

They're coming for you guns! See, your hypocrisy is rampant.

[Phil in Absentia]

no one will ever overturn Roe vs Wade. not unless this country is going to be overrun by the likes of Pat Robertson, which will never happen. Democrats bring up Roe Vs Wage with every Republican being nominated to any civil post. Its fear mongering by the democrats.

Maybe not, but they'll chip away at it at the State level, making it harder, if not practically impossible, to get services in states like Texas.

[CCCP]

Maybe not, but they'll chip away at it at the State level, making it harder, if not practically impossible, to get services in states like Texas.

wouldn't that mean overturning Roe vs Wage if they were to give to states to decide? Roe vs Wade is a federal law

[RodrigueGabriel]

wouldn't that mean overturning Roe vs Wage if they were to give to states to decide? Roe vs Wade is a federal law

Texas, Mississippi and other states have been trying to kill Roe with 1000 cuts. These include requirements that providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals and other regulations that would essentially make it impossible for clinics to operate. These regs skirt the question of the right to a safe abortion but ultimately disable it if allowed to stand.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

[josh]

just tell them it will lead to more minority voters in the future.

[Pete]

just tell them it will lead to more minority voters in the future.

Isn't voter suppression your guy's specialty?

[josh]

only if you believe yahoo articles

[Pete]

only if you believe yahoo articles

Huffpost.

[Phil in Absentia]

wouldn't that mean overturning Roe vs Wage if they were to give to states to decide? Roe vs Wade is a federal law

Texas, Mississippi and other states have been trying to kill Roe with 1000 cuts. These include requirements that providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals and other regulations that would essentially make it impossible for clinics to operate. These regs skirt the question of the right to a safe abortion but ultimately disable it if allowed to stand.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

TRAP laws, the requirement that patients undergoe an ultrasound in order to qualify for an abortion (an attempt designed to evoke an emotional response so the woman second guesses her choice), mandatory waiting periods in order to receive an abortion, and state-level bans once pregnancy has surpassed a specific number of weeks are all going to be part of the GOP's "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach. All of which would almost certainly be upheld by a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court should any cases get to them.

[Long live the King]

TRAP laws, the requirement that patients undergoe an ultrasound in order to qualify for an abortion (an attempt designed to evoke an emotional response so the woman second guesses her choice), mandatory waiting periods in order to receive an abortion, and state-level bans once pregnancy has surpassed a specific number of weeks are all going to be part of the GOP's "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach. All of which would almost certainly be upheld by a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court should any cases get to them.

Pro-choice folks, do you support partial birth abortions? Does the number of weeks matter?

[Phil in Absentia]

Pro-choice folks, do you support partial birth abortions? Does the number of weeks matter?

First off, partial-birth is a political term, not a medical one. That's an important distinction to make. It's designed to humanize fetuses specifically for this reason.

The answer to the question is not black and white. It's complicated and entirely dependent on the circumstances. If the fetus has developed specific conditions, like severe brain damage, major deformity, or has placed the mother at severe risk, then yes, probably. But as a general rule of thumb I defer to the 20-week rule.

[RodrigueGabriel]

This question should be between a woman and her doctor. Few would choose this route.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

[josh]

only if medically necessary, IMO.

also not worth the time, energy and money to fight it. Instead, tie em up while youre in there.

[Long live the King]

First off, partial-birth is a political term, not a medical one. That's an important distinction to make. It's designed to humanize fetuses specifically for this reason.

The answer to the question is not black and white. It's complicated and entirely dependent on the circumstances. If the fetus has developed specific conditions, like severe brain damage, major deformity, or has placed the mother at severe risk, then yes, probably. But as a general rule of thumb I defer to the 20-week rule.

only if medically necessary, IMO.

also not worth the time, energy and money to fight it. Instead, tie em up while youre in there.

I agree with medical necessity, and rape cases.

What's special about 20 weeks? Seems like an arbitrary number. Like having to be 18 to vote, when there are plenty of 16 year olds that could make more informed decisions than idiots in their mid 20's. So an abortion at 19 weeks and 6 days is ok today, but tomorrow its not? I don't agree with having a cut off date in terms of number of weeks.

I think it would be far easier, for people making the choice to engage in actions that may produce a baby, to get an IUD. I think people should make good choice BEFORE the consequences of their actions happen. Make the choice to not have unprotected sex with random, untrustworthy people. If birth control needs to be more affordable and accessible I support that. What I can't wrap my head around is when you decide to get an abortion at 4 weeks you're just making a choice, but 9 months later you kill the 1 month old baby you don't want and throw it in a dumpster you're going to prison. To me that is the same life being killed.

[Phil in Absentia]

The significance of 20 weeks is with regard to the development of the fetus. I wouldn't personally abort anything, unless medically required, or in the case of major deformity, that close. But from a medical perspective it's a fairly common "cutoff".

[Dunny]

You probably shouldn't watch a 12 week ultrasound, then.

[NYR2711]

The significance of 20 weeks is with regard to the development of the fetus. I wouldn't personally abort anything, unless medically required, or in the case of major deformity, that close. But from a medical perspective it's a fairly common "cutoff".

20 weeks seems kind of late. You can deliver a premature baby at 23 weeks and it can still survive. Im prochoice, but even I wouldn't be fine with 20 weeks, thats too late into the pregnancy, IMO, unless its an extreme medical emergency.

[Phil in Absentia]

You probably shouldn't watch a 12 week ultrasound, then.

You must have missed the part when I said I wouldn't do it personally. Any abortion decision on my end, if I even made one at all, would likely happen almost immediately.

[Pete]

This is the great part about being pro-choice. What I would do doesn't matter, except when I'm making my own decisions, for me.

Which would be never, because I'm not carrying a baby. But were my opinion from the mother be asked, I would share.

I think the point most are missing here is that none of you have the right to tell a pregnant woman what to do. Your values, your morals, your thoughts, your beliefs don't matter if a woman in Oklahoma wants an abortion.

[josh]

I also don’t think one should have the right to kill a baby because he/she doesn’t understand the reproductive process.