SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

But if there is "no legal limit", it is something that could happen, hence put a limit and you destroy their argument about that.

Or we can stick to "medical necessity and ethical practice", which is determinable case-by-case rather than by stupid arbitrary assumptions by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Should there be a "legal limit" on setting broken bones? Or should be it up to the doctor and patient, based on medical standards of practice?

- - - Updated - - -

So if it does not affect anyone, there is no issue in putting a limit. Conservatives won't whine about it, and you shot down their argument.

There is an issue of putting a limit; outliers exist, and fall afoul of that limit, which serves no practical purpose for existing in the first place.

And no, "assuaging some conservative extremists who have no idea what they're talking about" is not a "practical purpose".

[Fugus]

A lot of dehumanization going on here. But I am more than happy for pro-abortion types to call babies in early development "no more a living being anymore than a tape worm" and "the mess they created" because that illustrates the extent of the problem.

No dehumanizing here at all, just being honest. The body isn't what makes a person and at that state the body isn't even completely there. The consciousness is what makes a person and if it's not there, they aren't there.

Getting rid of a cluster of cells feeding off a host with zero consciousness isn't murder just like unplugging a brain dead family member on life support. The body doesn't make the person. The consciousness does.

Oh, now it's magically humanized as a "child", although you've got some murky parts on when the "created" happened.

Nope, the development of consciousness does. And if you have forced the person to create that consciousness against their will, your forced that child to be created even more than the parents did as they had no intent of even getting pregnant let along creating a child while you went out of your way with the intent of forcing that child to be created.

The people firebombing and attacking crisis pregnancy centers are your allies, not mine. Maybe let them distribute diapers, food, cribs, carseats, baby carriers, and a host of other things if this is really important to you.

Actually, the ones firebombing those centers would be your friends (If you actually believed what you post which I don't believe you do) as they are trying to force children to be created against the wishes of those involved. If they actually cared about the sanctity of life as they claimed they wouldn't be firebombing those places to protect non-existent kids and force them into existence, they would be helping the children who were born and actually exist distributing what you said but they aren't because they don't really care about the children.

[Edge-]

Should there be a "legal limit" on setting broken bones? Or should be it up to the doctor and patient, based on medical standards of practice?

That should be a decision made by the individual, their doctor, and their local politicians, apparently.

[Specialka]

Unnecessary legislation is unnecessary.



I'd think they would given their hatred of "unnecessary legislation" being a symptom of "BIG GOVERNMENT"!

Again, it's a bad-faith argument and not one worth granting any credibility. You still have yet to show there's a need for the laws. Laws do, and should, only exist because there's a practical need for them.

My country has a limit and most people (women included) are content with it.

[Endus]

My country has a limit and most people (women included) are content with it.

And? Nazi Germany had standards on how to treat Jewish people, and most Germans were content with it. Appeals to popularity aren't arguments.

[Specialka]

And? Nazi Germany had standards on how to treat Jewish people, and most Germans were content with it. Appeals to popularity aren't arguments.

That's the comparison you come to ? I guess you have severe issue to deal with and should refrain from participating to debate.

[Edge-]

My country has a limit and most people (women included) are content with it.

And other countries have total bans and most people (women included) are likely content with it.

What's your point? That different countries are different? Which I imagine is self-evident to literally everyone?

[Belize]

Is there not some states where you could ? Where you have no limit to do an abortion ?

Not that I know of, unless of extreme cases where the baby wouldn't survive more that a couple hours once birthed

[Specialka]

And other countries have total bans and most people (women included) are likely content with it.

What's your point? That different countries are different? Which I imagine is self-evident to literally everyone?

Because one of your argument is that it is unnecessary to put a limit. My country put one and I can guarantee that it is not unnecessary. Because it shoot down that argument (about having no limit, etc...).

[Edge-]

Because one of your argument is that it is unnecessary to put a limit.

In my country, yes. This is a discussion of American laws as they relate to reproductive health care. You seem to always want to discuss other nations when your chosen arguments find no traction and are rebutted pretty often. It'd be like us going into a thread about domestic issues in France and just talking about how it's done in the US. Pretty irrelevant.

Because it shoot down that argument (about having no limit, etc...).

And again, it's irrelevant. Just as other nations having a total ban on abortions is irrelevant to your nation's limits that the people find acceptable right now.

You want to create a thread to discuss French laws and their domestic popularity/unpopularity? Go for it. But this ain't it, champ. Unless you think France and America are like, culturally and ideologically identical in almost every way?

[Endus]

That's the comparison you come to ? I guess you have severe issue to deal with and should refrain from participating to debate.

The point, which you chose to ignore, was that "my fellow citizens in my country mostly don't have a problem with X" is not an argument that X is justifiable. It's just an appeal to popularity. If you won't find the Nazi example acceptable, then you understand what I'm getting at here.

Because one of your argument is that it is unnecessary to put a limit. My country put one and I can guarantee that it is not unnecessary. Because it shoot down that argument (about having no limit, etc...).

You've made no argument of its necessity. You skipped right past that to argue that it's largely popularly supported. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. How many people in any particular nation support an idea says nothing about the validity of that idea. Most Saudi Arabians are Muslim; does that mean Islam is inherently and automatically the One True Faith? Or does that become immediately ridiculous when we consider other nations with majority religions, not to mention that we're still relying on an appeal to popularity to skip right past the merits of the idea itself.

[Specialka]

In my country, yes. This is a discussion of American laws as they relate to reproductive health care. You seem to always want to discuss other nations when your chosen arguments find no traction and are rebutted pretty often. It'd be like us going into a thread about domestic issues in France and just talking about how it's done in the US. Pretty irrelevant.



And again, it's irrelevant. Just as other nations having a total ban on abortions is irrelevant to your nation's limits that the people find acceptable right now.

You want to create a thread to discuss French laws and their domestic popularity/unpopularity? Go for it. But this ain't it, champ. Unless you think France and America are like, culturally and ideologically identical in almost every way?

Because you can look on how it is done elsewhere. It is so american to think you do not need to.

[Ripster42]

Because one of your argument is that it is unnecessary to put a limit. My country put one and I can guarantee that it is not unnecessary. Because it shoot down that argument (about having no limit, etc...).

Your country doesn't have a limit if you can get 2 doctors to say that it'll prevent injury (physical or mental, which means there is no limit) to the mother or if the baby has an incurable severe disease, not even a fatal disease. Your high horse is a dead donkey buried in a shallow grave.

[Edge-]

Because you can look on how it is done elsewhere. It is so american to think you do not need to.

And it's totally banned elsewhere. So what?

[Endus]

And it's totally banned elsewhere. So what?

Plus, on "necessity", a lot of people doing a thing can't prove it to be so. A small group or even a single individual not doing so can prove the reverse, though. If a culture (to make something up so I'm not picking on any particular real belief) believes that drinking soda is deadly, because the gasses will build up and you'll explode, in their culture banning soda might be seen as "necessary" to protect its citizens from accidental self-explosion. But one guy sitting down with several cases of club soda and guzzling all of it, belching outrageously as they go, can conclusively demonstrate that you won't, in fact, explode, and that law is therefore not "necessary"; it actually serves no meaningful purpose and is based solely on bad information and kneejerk reactions.

Which brings us back around, because as I've repeatedly pointed out, Canada has no specific legal constraints on abortion. Literally not even mentioned in our law codes. Been that way for decades. And we've had no negative consequences emerge from this. Laws restricting abortion are provably unnecessary, and claims that they are "necessary" can be, thus, discarded out of hand as false.

[Edge-]

Which brings us back around, because as I've repeatedly pointed out, Canada has no specific legal constraints on abortion. Literally not even mentioned in our law codes. Been that way for decades. And we've had no negative consequences emerge from this. Laws restricting abortion are provably unnecessary, and claims that they are "necessary" can be, thus, discarded out of hand as false.

You mean to tell me women in Canada aren't getting pregnant just so they can pursue an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy?! What a concept!

[Endus]

You mean to tell me women in Canada aren't getting pregnant just so they can pursue an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy?! What a concept!

In fact, our abortion rate is running about 15ish abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. And France, since that's apparently the comparison to be drawn, with their 14-week limit? They tend to run about 17 abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. The USA? Nearly 21 per 1000 women of child-bearing age.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...tes-by-country

It's almost like a lack of restrictions doesn't actually lead to exploding numbers of abortions. Just safer abortions and less harm inflicted upon women.

[Specialka]

In fact, our abortion rate is running about 15ish abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. And France, since that's apparently the comparison to be drawn, with their 14-week limit? They tend to run about 17 abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. The USA? Nearly 21 per 1000 women of child-bearing age.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...tes-by-country

It's almost like a lack of restrictions doesn't actually lead to exploding numbers of abortions. Just safer abortions and less harm inflicted upon women.

That is not what your number is telling, but I know you do not care about that.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's totally banned elsewhere. So what?

What is totally banned ? Abortion ?

[Edge-]

That is not what your number is telling, but I know you do not care about that.

What is it saying, then?

- - - Updated - - -

What is totally banned ? Abortion ?

Yeah. You know, the topic of this thread. And the topic we've been discussing back and forth for a handful of posts?

Did you suddenly think I was talking about total bans on owning bearded dragons or something?

[Specialka]

What is it saying, then?

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah. You know, the topic of this thread. And the topic we've been discussing back and forth for a handful of posts?

Did you suddenly think I was talking about total bans on owning bearded dragons or something?

Abortion is not banned in every country ? What are you talking about ?

And those numbers are not saying that. They may have another meaning, but not that one.