This topic has been locked by a moderator.
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
?
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
The Person in Question
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
?
I expect that it would be difficult to be an evangelical and also be a liberal, since to be a liberal today generally means being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and pro science. This is why there is such an anti-religious tone on the Left - the values which were fringe only a few decades ago have now become mainstream and to be religious and liberal is more and more an act of outright hypocrisy.
But pro-choice doesn’t inherently mean pro-abortion. Pro-choice means “leave the federal government out of it, thanks”; or “that’s between the mother, her God, and her doctor”; or “immoral and criminal are not the same thing”; or “this issue is supremely complicated so don’t make blanket decisions for everyone.”
Pro-science also doesn’t inherently mean anti-God. Pro-science can mean God is perfectly capable of creating a universe in a way that makes scientific sense, and we value spending time figuring out what it is.
And pro gay marriage, while a divisive topic, does not inherently mean one does not take issue with the lifestyle itself (though it does suggest so), but rather what one believes the government’s role should be.
It’s not just the left who is at fault for belittling the right as ignorant and backward. It’s also the fault of the right for demonizing the left’s opinion as though such issues were black and white.
There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.
I heartily agree with the sentiment that the Democratic Party needs to move away from being perceived as the “pro-abortion” party. I personally have known people who are one-issue voters, where that one issue is abortion. And, despite how narrow and ignorant I feel that is, that means it’s important to those people. So the Democrats really need to move away from allowing themselves to be pigeon-holed on such an apparently important topic.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
?
oh.
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.
How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.
Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.
The Person in Question
Define “late-term.”
I’m a staunch pro-choicer but I don’t think a woman should be allowed to say “I changed my mind, I’m not ready for a baby” at 38 weeks.
Luckily that almost never happens.
Define “late-term.”
I’m a staunch pro-choicer but I don’t think a woman should be allowed to say “I changed my mind, I’m not ready for a baby” at 38 weeks.
That’s basically what I’m saying, although I’d put it around the third trimester at the latest.
Luckily that almost never happens.
So it’s not a big deal to outlaw it?
The Person in Question
Here you go…granted it’s from 2012 but if anything numbers seem to be declining.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm#tab2
State Number abortions ≥21 weeks, 2012
Alaska 0
Colorado 87
DC Not reported, I assume 0 as 1 clinic offers up to 26 weeks and 0 ≥21 week terminations reported in 2011, 2010, 2009
New Hampshire Not reported, likely 0. Although not reported in 2011, 2010, and 2009 there are only 3 clinics in the state and only one offers 2nd trimester procedures
New Jersey 734
New Mexico 191
Oregon 166Vermont 8
Total 1,186
West Virginia and Mississippi didn’t have gestational age limits in 2012 although they do now so I didn’t include them as neither reported abortions at or after 21 weeks in 2012 so it’s a bit moot. Oregon does not appear to have a practitioner specializing in later term abortions, although abortion data from the State is hard to get. Only one clinic does abortions up to 24 weeks. There may be some post 24 week procedures at hospitals in Oregon, but likely less than the other states.
Of the 699,202 abortions reported to the CDC in 2012, 0.17% were at or after 21 weeks and occurred in a state where it was possible to have a post viability abortion for any reason. We know from other data sets that many procedures at or after 21 weeks are for fetal anomalies (some say about 80%) and many of these are before 24 weeks. A review of data from one clinic that does abortions after 24 weeks in a state with no gestational age limit shows a median gestational age of 22 weeks. It is a likely a fair extrapolation that all clinics specializing in later term procedures have a similar medial gestational age. Using all the available data it would be fair to say that at least 50% of the 1,186 procedures are < 24 weeks, but that may be higher.
We aborted at 21 weeks because our baby would be stillborn no mater what. I’d hardly call our decision “abortions for all under any circumstance.”
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.
How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.
Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.
Well, speaking as someone who knows someone who had a late-term abortion, let me spell it out. Her fetuses had already died, the miscarriage was not happening for whatever reason, and she was in serious danger of getting blood poisoning from the dead bodies inside her. Had there been a late-term abortion ban in our state, she’d be dead along with her fetuses. Yes, aborting pregnancies where the fetus has already died is still abortion. The procedure is the same. As it was, even though we’re in a “liberal” state, she had to drive several hours to get this life-saving procedure, and nobody was allowed in the room with her while she had it (she was grieving AND in danger of death, and she had to go in alone) because once you’ve whittled down the options to the few who provide the service at all (considering how incredibly rare late-term abortions are, how the state can regulate them especially stringently, and how this increases the chances of getting firebombed/assassinated, you can see why this may be the case), you pretty much have to go with whatever bizarre rules they choose to have.
Regarding the earlier point, it’s much like drug legalization. Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean everyone gets drugs with no repercussions. Kids don’t. You can still get DUIs, etc. Similarly, the liberal position on abortions doesn’t mean a regulatory free-for-all. Reasonable controls can still exist, viability for example.
Luckily that almost never happens.
So it’s not a big deal to outlaw it?
Ok, pick the week it’s no longer allowed. Also pick the reasons it is allowed. Also I said “almost never” but is it actually “never?”
Seeing as how I’ve repeatedly reiterated that I’m only opposed to mid to late abortions for the sake of the mother not wanting a child and have also repeatedly reiterated, or at least clearly implied, that those are the instances that I think should be limited, I don’t really understand the confusion surrounding my posts.
The Person in Question
Luckily that almost never happens.
So it’s not a big deal to outlaw it?
Ok, pick the week it’s no longer allowed. Also pick the reasons it is allowed. Also I said “almost never” but is it actually “never?”
I can’t do that because I’m not a constitutional lawyer or a healthcare professional.
The Person in Question
Alright then.
But you did ask me questions and I’m neither of those things either.
We aborted at 21 weeks because our baby would be stillborn no mater what.
What?! Wow, I’m so sorry.
Seriously. I’m a parent and I just can’t even…
I’m so sorry.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
No worries, it happened over 10 years ago now and I’ve told the story multiple times in this thread over the past several years. It was really hard for the first several years but it gets easier each year (and talking about it actually helps).
I remember listening to an NPR segment on abortion. There was this woman they interviewed about it who said she had regrets, and said she looks back on it and laments how little to no counseling there was. She said had she been provided with counseling beforehand, she might have changed her decision. They then talked on the segment about the whether policy should be made to make counseling mandatory beforehand. I don’t remember the consensus or if there even was one.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.
How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.
Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.
Well, speaking as someone who knows someone who had a late-term abortion, let me spell it out. Her fetuses had already died, the miscarriage was not happening for whatever reason, and she was in serious danger of getting blood poisoning from the dead bodies inside her. Had there been a late-term abortion ban in our state, she’d be dead along with her fetuses. Yes, aborting pregnancies where the fetus has already died is still abortion. The procedure is the same. As it was, even though we’re in a “liberal” state, she had to drive several hours to get this life-saving procedure, and nobody was allowed in the room with her while she had it (she was grieving AND in danger of death, and she had to go in alone) because once you’ve whittled down the options to the few who provide the service at all (considering how incredibly rare late-term abortions are, how the state can regulate them especially stringently, and how this increases the chances of getting firebombed/assassinated, you can see why this may be the case), you pretty much have to go with whatever bizarre rules they choose to have.
Regarding the earlier point, it’s much like drug legalization. Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean everyone gets drugs with no repercussions. Kids don’t. You can still get DUIs, etc. Similarly, the liberal position on abortions doesn’t mean a regulatory free-for-all. Reasonable controls can still exist, viability for example.
I think the laws should be different when comes aborting fetuses at are already dead, as opposed to fetuses that are still alive. I don’t think there needs to be any restrictions put on aborting dead fetuses.
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.
How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.
Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.
Well, speaking as someone who knows someone who had a late-term abortion, let me spell it out. Her fetuses had already died, the miscarriage was not happening for whatever reason, and she was in serious danger of getting blood poisoning from the dead bodies inside her. Had there been a late-term abortion ban in our state, she’d be dead along with her fetuses. Yes, aborting pregnancies where the fetus has already died is still abortion. The procedure is the same. As it was, even though we’re in a “liberal” state, she had to drive several hours to get this life-saving procedure, and nobody was allowed in the room with her while she had it (she was grieving AND in danger of death, and she had to go in alone) because once you’ve whittled down the options to the few who provide the service at all (considering how incredibly rare late-term abortions are, how the state can regulate them especially stringently, and how this increases the chances of getting firebombed/assassinated, you can see why this may be the case), you pretty much have to go with whatever bizarre rules they choose to have.
Regarding the earlier point, it’s much like drug legalization. Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean everyone gets drugs with no repercussions. Kids don’t. You can still get DUIs, etc. Similarly, the liberal position on abortions doesn’t mean a regulatory free-for-all. Reasonable controls can still exist, viability for example.
I think the laws should be different when comes aborting fetuses at are already dead, as opposed to fetuses that are still alive. I don’t think there needs to be any restrictions put on aborting dead fetuses.
I’m almost certain that if the fetus is already dead, there are no laws that would prevent its removal prior to term.
I think the laws should be different when comes aborting fetuses at are already dead, as opposed to fetuses that are still alive. I don’t think there needs to be any restrictions put on aborting dead fetuses.
That’s why a viability standard makes more sense than an arbitrary number of weeks–it’s medically flexible enough to cover a lot of scenarios (but still not all). Also, the life of the mother is a very serious consideration that’s far too frequently left out of the equation because people can be real shits.
I remember listening to an NPR segment on abortion. There was this woman they interviewed about it who said she had regrets, and said she looks back on it and laments how little to no counseling there was. She said had she been provided with counseling beforehand, she might have changed her decision. They then talked on the segment about the whether policy should be made to make counseling mandatory beforehand. I don’t remember the consensus or if there even was one.
Counseling makes sense, but who provides it? Many people who want this see it as a means to stop all abortions, so they want someone to talk the woman out of it, rather than empowering her to make an informed choice.
the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.
I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.
Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?
Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.
I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.
How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.
Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.
Well, speaking as someone who knows someone who had a late-term abortion, let me spell it out. Her fetuses had already died, the miscarriage was not happening for whatever reason, and she was in serious danger of getting blood poisoning from the dead bodies inside her. Had there been a late-term abortion ban in our state, she’d be dead along with her fetuses. Yes, aborting pregnancies where the fetus has already died is still abortion. The procedure is the same. As it was, even though we’re in a “liberal” state, she had to drive several hours to get this life-saving procedure, and nobody was allowed in the room with her while she had it (she was grieving AND in danger of death, and she had to go in alone) because once you’ve whittled down the options to the few who provide the service at all (considering how incredibly rare late-term abortions are, how the state can regulate them especially stringently, and how this increases the chances of getting firebombed/assassinated, you can see why this may be the case), you pretty much have to go with whatever bizarre rules they choose to have.
Regarding the earlier point, it’s much like drug legalization. Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean everyone gets drugs with no repercussions. Kids don’t. You can still get DUIs, etc. Similarly, the liberal position on abortions doesn’t mean a regulatory free-for-all. Reasonable controls can still exist, viability for example.
I think the laws should be different when comes aborting fetuses at are already dead, as opposed to fetuses that are still alive. I don’t think there needs to be any restrictions put on aborting dead fetuses.
I’m almost certain that if the fetus is already dead, there are no laws that would prevent its removal prior to term.
There certainly weren’t in our case. But then if there aren’t facilities capable of providing late-term abortions anywhere in the state, does it matter if it’s legal in your case?
On another note, it looks like white supremacists may start needing to get their rubles via alternate sources.