Thanks y'all. I just wished more poeple would bother to learn they offer more than abortion services. Cheaper than a gyno when you just need to refill a prescription.
I wish more people did know. They offer terrific services - and so many.
- - - Updated - - -
GOP dismisses talk of legislation to ban abortion after McConnell suggests 'it's possible'.
We see the GQP agenda for 2024 already taking shape. Federal anti-abortion law already in the mix - confirmed. Wanna bet SCOTUS finds a way to uphold that?
It actually is kind of a case by case thing where only certain causes are granted the benefit. The judges are ready to take away rights from millions of women and are therefor in the wrong. Gay marriage didn't take anyones rights away, it just expanded marriage rights to gay people, so if conservatives staked out the house of judges to protest that then they would be bigots and in the wrong. So both in reality and in your hypothetical scenario Republicans are in the wrong and are the bad guys for lack of a better phrase and deserve to be treated accordingly. As long as things don't get violent, I don't really see the issue.
It's obviously a gradual development. And not every pregnancy is the same. And even medical advances might play a role. Which is why any specific legal limitation will alway be subject to debate, and that was sort of my original point btw.
- - - Updated - - -
1> You were talking about prematurely inducing birth with the intent of giving the fetus the possibility to survive - ergo becoming a child.
2> Because pregnancy is an extremely unique situation. Saying there can't be unique rules for this simply because there are no similar situations is a fallacy.
And I will repeat this again, since you keep ignoring it: I'm talking about late-term abortions here. Of course any woman should have the right to decide whether or not terminate her pregnancy, so a right to abortion. But if the woman chooses keep the fetus until the late stages of pregnancy, when the fetus has developed to the point that it's life warrants consideration, then she would have to accept the responsiblity of going through with the pregnancy. If she does not want that, have the abortion before. Yes, thats a restriction, but the choice is there, and restricting your freedoms by committing to a responsiblity is hardly a unusual concept.
I think you mixed up the posts there. I was referring to your comparison of (not) being forced to donate tissue for a patient and a pregnant woman (not) being allowed to abort.Who said nobody should help the fetus? If it's viable, get it out with minimal harm and get it into the NICU. If it's not, saying it's being "killed" is pretty wildly hyperbolic; it's dying all on its own.
Rights are restricted all the time, and different rights or different people's rights are often in conflict. That make them invalid, it just means they have to be weighed against each other in consideration of the circumstances, and one wins out or a compromise is reached. It's no different with a pregnant woman and the fetus.If a right like bodily autonomy is conditional, then it isn't a right, and that means your argument is that women deserve fewer rights than men. That's the problem. Some of us don't ignore that the pregnant woman's a real person and has rights. That's why this anti-choice nonsense falls flat.
And it's really weird how you act like my take on this is absurd or nonsensical.
I mean, Roe v. Wade says pretty much the same thing: Women have a right to abortion, but it's not absolute, the fetal life has to be considered as well, and may outweigh the woman's right at some point in the pregnancy. Which is why the ruling explicitly allows abortion bans in the third trimester.
- - - Updated - - -
It was a hyperbole to emphasize a point. And maybe look at the context before you start throwing accusations around.
- - - Updated - - -
Did you actually read my posts? I have no idea what you're talking about, because I didn't say anything like that. At all. And you conveniently replaced whatever you were quoting with a pejorative...
- - - Updated - - -
I guess I should have been more clear from the start, but I didn't really expect people to jump down my throat with some fanatical pro-life straw man, when I mentioned multiple times that I don't agree with Republican positions on this at all and never questioned abortion in general.
What I did was call out some nonsensical pro-abortion arguments and disagree with the, in my opinion, rather radical views of some posters. That's it. Doesn't mean I'm not pro choice.
And if someone wonders why I focussed on this instead of the main topic (Republicans gutting abortions laws), there wasn't really anything for me to add on that that hadn't been posted multiple times already in the hundreds of posts before me (and I did mention my opinion on this anyway).
Last edited by Ryom; 2022-05-10 at 04:25 AM.
It's "unique" in the same sense that literally every single biological factor is technically "unique". The circulatory system is "unique". A broken arm is "unique". Kidney stones are "unique". That doesn't justify any kind of special consideration, by itself.
And? That doesn't meaningfully change anything. It just means, at best, that the pregnancy should be terminated by removing the fetus intact and letting the NICU take over.And I will repeat this again, since you keep ignoring it: I'm talking about late-term abortions here.
That bit in bold does not follow from the preceding points, in any way whatsoever. You're leaping to that conclusion without providing any rationale for it whatsoever.Of course any woman should have the right to decide whether or not terminate her pregnancy, so a right to abortion. But if the woman chooses keep the fetus until the late stages of pregnancy, when the fetus has developed to the point that it's life warrants consideration, then she would have to accept the responsiblity of going through with the pregnancy.
Oh, then you were just openly dishonest, because there isn't a functional difference between the two. Wait, no, there's one big functional difference; abortions don't lead to a person's death. Whereas denying them a life-saving transplant would.I think you mixed up the posts there. I was referring to your comparison of (not) being forced to donate tissue for a patient and a pregnant woman (not) being allowed to abort.
The restrictions that apply are when one right runs up against another person's superior rights. This is why right to life, for instance, never supercedes another person's right to their bodily autonomy. That's why you can't harvest organs from those unwilling, even after death, for instance. There is no circumstance where we deem that right to life supercedes bodily autonomy, except for pregnancy, and there isn't an argument for that exception that is not based on pseudo-religious misogyny.Rights are restricted all the time, and different rights or different people's rights are often in conflict. That make them invalid, it just means they have to be weighed against each other in consideration of the circumstances, and one wins out or a compromise is reached. It's no different with a pregnant woman and the fetus.
Roe v. Wade was a chickenshit half-ass that dodged the issue by focusing on privacy rights rather than the operative question at the center, and yes, it maintained a lot of misogynistic crap while doing so. If people were talking about replacing it with actual legislative defense of women's basic rights, that'd be a good thing.And it's really weird how you act like my take on this is absurd or nonsensical.
I mean, Roe v. Wade says pretty much the same thing: Women have a right to abortion, but it's not absolute, the fetal life has to be considered as well, and may outweigh the woman's right at some point in the pregnancy. Which is why the ruling explicitly allows abortion bans in the third trimester.
It's still better than repealing it wholesale without replacement, which is nothing but a naked attack on women and their basic humanity.
If you mean me and my arguments, here, I'll note that my position is, fundamentally, the status quo of Canadian law going back more than 30 years. It isn't "radical" in any sense whatsoever.What I did was call out some nonsensical pro-abortion arguments and disagree with the, in my opinion, rather radical views of some posters. That's it. Doesn't mean I'm not pro choice.
Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
Well fucking gee golly, it's almost like context exists and history shows Trump is a lying conman that has swindled plenty out of their money, lied so much he started a terror attack, created a terror attack, got a million people killed, and so much more while Biden is your average politician.
This is like going "how come you guys don't trust that mafia boss when you'll trust the paper boy?" You can't own a brain and then say something that stupid.
- - - Updated - - -
So you're saying the people who are the dumbest will continue being dumb?
Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866
You are being disingenuous because you are legitimizing a complete abortion ban by engaging with hyperbolic exaggeratedly fringe cases, using the emotional language of people who want to turn women into breeding mares.
Late term elective abortions are not a thing. Tho an ethical argument can be made in their favor. Just as an ethical argument can be made against it, but once you err on the side of that the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy you have to accept that it either does so in all cases, like transplants or you have to explain how and why pregnancy is a special case.
You can't have it both ways without accepting that you are being arbitrary.
Last edited by Mihalik; 2022-05-10 at 08:35 AM.
They're going to be disappointed if they think they're going to have a lot of success suing doctors in Canada for providing such services. A lawsuit in a Canadian court will just rule 'This is legal here', and a US court doesn't have subpoena power in Canada. They would have to extradite, which is done at the federal level (a US state can't do it), and the extradition treaty states what offenses it covers. Providing abortion services isn't on the list.
So it's like 99.99% of right wing talking points? Color me surprised.
Since conservatives in this thread keep dishonestly preaching about compromise as if you could compromise on human rights, here's an actual compromise for them. How about they bring the part of the Bible about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to life. As in upon themselves, so they can fuck off to the afterlife they think is better anyway (because they are totally going to heaven) and leave the people capable of living in 21st century alone?
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
Maybe it's time for people to have another Civil War in the States. Get rid of all the old fucking dirtbags in power that are set in their old ways.
Of course, the point is that it will have some impact.
Some Canadian doctors will not visit the US due to this, some might do it despite the problem and some of them get arrested causing a shit-storm (and some other persons might be accidentally arrested due to confusion), and some conferences might move from the US.
Let's be clear; we're talking about a situation where Canada will be closing off friendly relations with the USA altogether and potentially pushing the UN for sanctions and such against them, as the USA spirals down into being a bigot-driven dystopia. Sure, there's every chance the USA will respond badly to that, and we're well aware we're Poland if American Nazis get uppity, but we can't exactly move the country, but we can tell the Nazis to fuck off as loudly as we can get away with.
Doctors attending conferences will be the least fuckin concern, dude.
Likely nothing would happen. Do you really think the US is going to start arresting all doctors that enter the country? Because it's not like Canada is going to give the state governments things like medical records. We won't tell them if a procedure has even happened, much less name the doctor that performed it. Should the US go so far as to just start arresting and imprisoning random doctors, I'd imagine that medical conferences involving foreign doctors would stop being held at US destinations.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1...dhGv8-4jQ&s=19Susan Collins calls the cops to investigate “defacement of public property” after someone wrote a message in chalk on the sidewalk near her home asking her to codify Roe. https://t.co/YY7ehcDxLv
https://bangordailynews.com/2022/05/...ngor-sidewalk/Sen. Susan Collins was confronted with a pro-abortion rights message Saturday night when an unknown person or persons wrote in chalk on the sidewalk outside her West Broadway home in Bangor, prompting a police response.
“Susie, please, Mainers want WHPA —–> vote yes, clean up your mess,” the message read, according to a Bangor police report.
Oh My Goodness! How will you ever get chalk off a sidewalk?
These Republicans have become very fragile these past few days.
Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!