1. #6621
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Yeah, I've heard them, and I still disagree with their desire to find compromise because like you they too don't really understand the ramifications of any sort of abortion bans or limitations.

    And if you don't believe that the stress of losing a partner and being rendered destitute as a result has no crossover with health and well being, with the ability of a woman to take care of herself during pregnancy, and with the ability to adequately care for a baby after it's born then again, you lack the intellectual and emotional capacity to weigh in on these sorts of discussions.
    Certainly the baby's life and the life of the mother through the pregnancy aren't threatened. Those are external to the pregnancy and argue for adoption, community aid, and state aid, not killing the baby. The baby in that case isn't the cause of the grief and would just be another innocent victim.

    You really don't understand anything about pregnancy, do you? You hear "healthy fetus, healthy pregnancy" and think it's just a walk in the park, right? Little personal story here, my wife developed pre-eclampsia while she was delivering our first boy after what was a completely normal pregnancy. Fortunately she recovered fully, but if you had any idea how quickly things can go from "everything's fine" to "if we don't get this under control you could die" then maybe you wouldn't be so frivolous with your crusade of forcing women to go through unwanted pregnancies. Of course since YOU can't actually get pregnant you probably still won't give a shit...

    The fact of the matter is still that these are medical procedures being performed as a result of a medically significant condition (it's ALWAYS medically significant, even when things appear to run smoothly) and the only people who should have any say in that are the medical practitioners and the patients.
    I'm not arguing against abortions in the case that something suddenly changes that threatens the life of the mother. And nothing about aborting viable babies is a "walk in the park."
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-05-13 at 03:50 AM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  2. #6622
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Certainly the baby's life and the life of the mother through the pregnancy aren't threatened. Those are external to the pregnancy and argue for adoption, community aid, and state aid, not killing the baby. The baby in that case isn't the cause of the grief and would just be another innocent victim.
    First of all, no one is killing a baby. That's called infanticide and there are already laws in place for that which no one is arguing to do away with. The fact that you can't even use proper terminology compounds the fact that you're unprepared for these sorts of discussions.

    Secondly, both pregnancy and the loss of a loved one (especially one that was relied upon for financial stability) are incredibly strenuous mentally, emotionally, and physically. These things have seriously adverse effects to peoples' health. "Well, lets let you suffer and just wait and see if things get worse" is torture, plain and simple. Setting the bar at "if they're not going to die then they should endure the pregnancy" is torture. You're advocating for torturing people just because you pretend to care about a fetus (one that you're apparently perfectly happy to abandon to inadequate, or often times non-existent, safety nets).

    No amount of hand-wringing over the "innocent victims" (when you clearly don't extend that benefit to the woman) is going to convince anyone here that you actually care about children. Or people in general, for that matter. While you haven't said it outright (at least not in your responses to me), your stance very much reeks of the idea that a pregnancy, and giving birth to a child, are a punishment or consequence that a woman must endure when they do something that you disagree with and can't give you a good enough reason to abort. No one who thinks of pregnancy, children, or women that way actually cares about "the innocent victims".

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm not arguing against abortions in the case that something suddenly changes that threatens the life of the mother.
    Sure, by trying to use fringe cases as an argument in favor of laws that DEFINITELY affect the people you purport to not be arguing against. Why didn't you also reference the ones where the fetus' sex was brought up? Because you realized that 2 cases over the course of 50 years didn't really fit the narrative of "so many women getting abortions for the wrong reasons that we need invasive laws that would invariably affect everyone in need of a late term abortions"?

    In a perfect world no one would get an abortion because everyone would receive proper sex ed, contraception would work 100% of the time, there would be no rape, no miscarriages, no congenital abnormalities, no life threatening medical issues, and everyone would be happy in a world without abortion. But in the real world, abortion is a necessity. And in the real world, the laws that you continually try to push disproportionately affect women who need abortions for serious medical concerns. In the real world, the laws that you push lead to MORE victims, MORE suffering, and MORE deaths.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-05-13 at 04:48 AM.

  3. #6623
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Just be a better person on the internet if you crave interaction.
    Might want to follow your own advice, ma'am.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  4. #6624
    High Overlord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You don't have to write shitposts tagging people if you make it clear your primary intention is to be insulting and condescending. "I'm sure you're a fucking idiot in a retarded party about to give me a mealy-mouthed answer, but here's a tag and notice my post!" Just be a better person on the internet if you crave interaction.
    You don't have to post any of the lies you do here, but you do so anyway. And by virtue of not being you, Mekh is indeed a better person.

  5. #6625
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You don't have to write shitposts tagging people if you make it clear your primary intention is to be insulting and condescending. "I'm sure you're a fucking idiot in a retarded party about to give me a mealy-mouthed answer, but here's a tag and notice my post!" Just be a better person on the internet if you crave interaction.
    So... you don't have one. That's a shame, but explains you rooting for a retarded party at least. That practiced victim role is adorable, but it's clear you crave that negative attention, otherwise you'd just go.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  6. #6626
    I don't know, man...it's pretty adorable that someone carrying water for American conservatives is out here telling someone else to "be a better person." As if the ideology he defends isn't inherently abhorrent. I would say "abhorrent at this point" but I'm not sure it was ever anything other than a way for shitty people to justify their shitty behavior under the guise of respectable political positions.

  7. #6627
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    First of all, no one is killing a baby. That's called infanticide and there are already laws in place for that which no one is arguing to do away with. The fact that you can't even use proper terminology compounds the fact that you're unprepared for these sorts of discussions.

    Secondly, both pregnancy and the loss of a loved one (especially one that was relied upon for financial stability) are incredibly strenuous mentally, emotionally, and physically. These things have seriously adverse effects to peoples' health. "Well, lets let you suffer and just wait and see if things get worse" is torture, plain and simple. Setting the bar at "if they're not going to die then they should endure the pregnancy" is torture. You're advocating for torturing people just because you pretend to care about a fetus (one that you're apparently perfectly happy to abandon to inadequate, or often times non-existent, safety nets).

    No amount of hand-wringing over the "innocent victims" (when you clearly don't extend that benefit to the woman) is going to convince anyone here that you actually care about children. Or people in general, for that matter. While you haven't said it outright (at least not in your responses to me), your stance very much reeks of the idea that a pregnancy, and giving birth to a child, are a punishment or consequence that a woman must endure when they do something that you disagree with and can't give you a good enough reason to abort. No one who thinks of pregnancy, children, or women that way actually cares about "the innocent victims".
    Good luck selling external things to the pregnancy as enough of a risk to terminate the pregnancy prior to labor and delivery. This is a breaking point. Say what you want about uncaring and torture, but holy cow if that's what you consider acceptable as an alternative, you and I are never going to agree.

    Sure, by trying to use fringe cases as an argument in favor of laws that DEFINITELY affect the people you purport to not be arguing against. Why didn't you also reference the ones where the fetus' sex was brought up? Because you realized that 2 cases over the course of 50 years didn't really fit the narrative of "so many women getting abortions for the wrong reasons that we need invasive laws that would invariably affect everyone in need of a late term abortions"?

    In a perfect world no one would get an abortion because everyone would receive proper sex ed, contraception would work 100% of the time, there would be no rape, no miscarriages, no congenital abnormalities, no life threatening medical issues, and everyone would be happy in a world without abortion. But in the real world, abortion is a necessity. And in the real world, the laws that you continually try to push disproportionately affect women who need abortions for serious medical concerns. In the real world, the laws that you push lead to MORE victims, MORE suffering, and MORE deaths.
    So keep it to the earlier gestational ages. The public is pretty complacent about abortion before 12 weeks. When you advocate pushing it later, and particularly past viability, myself and the public at large consider it only justified for the most extreme cases. Yes, even if you're incredibly concerned that laws allowing abortions in life-threatening emergencies are going to impact those that don't have life-threatening emergencies. Remember that the growing baby is capable of living independent of the mother, and no longer just something to be disregarded when weighed against external difficulties in living situation and family situation of the mother.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  8. #6628
    NC Doctors: The Details of the GOP’s Abortion Ban Are Even Worse Than You Think

    At a glance it looks reasonable compared to those being implemented in other states.

    • Bans abortion in North Carolina after 12 weeks.
    • Includes exceptions for rape and incest up to 20 weeks.
    • Includes exceptions for “life-limiting” fetal anomalies up to 24 weeks.
    • Includes full-term exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother.
    However, once you delved deeper into the bill.

    But the lesser publicized provisions, doctors told us, show that these bullet points obscure vague, confusing and medically unnecessary restrictions that push this bill far closer to a complete ban than a grand compromise.

    The 12-week ban imposes “an array of medically unnecessary hurdles, including three in-person office visits for medication abortions and in-person counseling 72 hours before all abortions,” the group of doctors and scholars wrote. These regulations “make it harder and more expensive for women to get early abortions.”

    In many cases, the bill will ensure that even a patient who does everything this law says they’re supposed to do will still not be able to get an appointment in time to have an abortion before 12 weeks.

    “It’s a horrible purgatory that patients are in,” Dr. Pettigrew said. “It’s dangerous and it’s absolutely not in the best interests of the health of North Carolinians.

    The bill also adds new licensing requirements for many abortion providers that could shut down all six existing Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. There are only 14 abortion clinics total operating in North Carolina, meaning nearly half of them could be forced to close. This would make it much harder for North Carolinians to get an abortion during the first trimester, even if it’s technically legal under the bill.

    Many other bans do not include the exceptions for the life of the mother, “life-limiting” anomalies, and cases of rape and incest.

    But the exceptions in North Carolina’s bill are far more limited than they seem, doctors say.

    Women seeking abortions under the incest and rape exceptions during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy will encounter the same problems and delays faced by women under current law. . Some women will be denied an abortion simply because it took them so long to get an appointment.

    “There are all kinds of scenarios where, you have an 11-year old who doesn’t understand what missed periods mean or who is so absolutely frightened or doesn’t have a trusted adult in their life to confide in of what changes seem to be happening in her body,” Dr. Pettigrew said.

    “So she may not realize what’s going on, or people around her may not realize what’s going on until after the 20th week.”

    And those life-limiting anomalies? They must be “uniformly diagnosable,” the bill says, meaning all the doctors present must unanimously agree. Many conditions are widely diagnosable, but few are uniformly so, the doctors said.

    “We don’t know how the language in this bill will play out in real life,” Dr. Pettigrew said. “It’s not medical,” she continued. “There’s no precedent, there’s no clarity.”

    The bill’s vagueness also makes emergencies even more dangerous. Lawyers are risk-averse, Dr. Pettigrew said, and will encourage doctors to wait on care if there’s just the slightest medical uncertainty, even if the doctor knows what to do and doesn’t have much time to spare.

    “They’re literally asking the doctor to tell the patient to wait until they’re closer to death before we can intervene,” Dr. Pettigrew said. “I’ve seen colleagues in Florida, in Tennessee, in all kinds of other states where patients are being told, ‘take your temperature and once you start to become [feverish], then we can consider you close enough to death to treat you.’”

    This bill makes it clear up front that abortions would be considered lawful in medical emergencies, but its definition of an emergency is not clear at all, doctors said.

    “It all comes down to how it ends up being interpreted,” Dr. Pettigrew added.

    In the other states that have enacted abortion bans, a major study shows, the maternal death rate is 62% higher.

    “It’s so horrible that we’re playing games with people’s lives.”

    The in-person visits requirement will be especially difficult for women in rural communities and those with kids and jobs.

    “We only have nine counties in North Carolina that actually have access to abortion care currently,” Dr. Michaela McCuddy, a family medicine doctor in Chatham County, told us. “So our patients are traveling two to three hours just to get an appointment.”

    Transportation. Childcare. Time off work. And each visit is expensive.

    “Imagine forcing that person to do that three separate times,” Dr. McCuddy said, “without any evidence to justify the medical necessity for those appointments.”

    But this burden will not fall just on patients seeking an abortion, Dr. McCuddy added.

    The ban will make physician shortages and long delays worse for everyone. Many rural areas are healthcare deserts, especially for pregnant women. In all of Western North Carolina, there are less than 10 hospitals that deliver babies.

    “When you add this additional strain of these unnecessary bans, it strains that system even further,” Dr. McCuddy said.

    Dr. Avanthi Jayaweera, a family medicine doctor in Caswell County, agreed.

    “This is going to overburden our emergency departments,” she said.

    The ban will also worsen the shortage of doctors, they added.

    Many doctors already in rural maternal care centers, including family physicians, will leave if they are not allowed to provide their full scope of care. Abortion bans also make it harder to recruit and retain providers, the doctors said, especially young resident physicians.

    Dr. Jayaweera, who is also a board member of the American Medical Student Association, said young physicians are turning away from states with restrictions.

    “We are already seeing a 10% decrease in OB-GYN applicants to residency programs in states with restrictions already in place,” she said.

    The bill paints a dark picture of abortion as psychologically and physically unsafe. It spells out a long list of potentially abortion-related complications the doctor must tell a patient. But medical evidence shows that nearly all of the listed complications are far more common during pregnancy than abortion, Dr. Pettigrew said.

    “Women are 14 times more likely to die from childbirth than from an abortion in the first trimester,” she said. “And so this is really meant to be a scare tactic, and an insult to the medical community because we already do that. Of course, we want our patients to be informed and make the right decision for themselves.”

    Doctors have also studied for decades whether abortion care caused patients psychological harm, Dr. Pettigrew said. “The evidence is very clear that having an abortion does not increase your risk of mental health conditions or psychological issues.”

    Denying someone a wanted abortion, however, does cause severe psychological trauma.

    Women denied an abortion are more likely to face increased household poverty and to stay in contact with a violent partner, according to a major study.

    The bill also suggests women get abortions because they are lied to or coerced into doing so, but that’s not how it happens, doctors say.

    The bill “creates a false narrative that doctors are the ones pressuring patients into having abortion care or not offering them alternatives, ” Dr. Jonas Swartz, a Duke Health obstetrician and gynecologist, told reporters in a conference call last week.

    “That is insulting. That’s not the way we care for patients,” Dr. Swartz said.

    “I’ve had patients who have already approached me who were nervous to even ask about their options,” Dr. Jayaweera added.

    Any doctor found in violation of the provisions in the bill can be referred to the North Carolina Medical Board to be disciplined. But violating a patient’s confidence, denying them the best care at a given time and lying to them about the risks of an abortion also clashes with the board’s stated principles, Dr. Pettigrew said.

    If the bill was presented to the medical board, she said, it would be viewed as “medical malpractice, as unethical behavior, as unprofessional behavior.”

    The bill also turns trusted doctors into spies.

    “It creates a completely new legal mandate for all doctors, not just abortion providers” to report any conditions to the state they think may be related to an abortion, Dr. Pettigrew said.

    Any urgent care doctor who thinks certain symptoms could be related to a hidden abortion has to interrogate the patient on where she might have gotten the pills.

    “It’s horrendous on so many levels. This is creepy, what it creates, it’s downright creepy,” Dr. Pettigrew said.

    Dr. Pettigrew, who also has a law degree, stayed up until 2 a.m. reading the bill the night it was released, writing notes in the margins.

    “There’s so many things that are wrong with this bill that we haven’t even talked about,” she said.

    Despite her thorough reading, she didn’t catch every detail.

    She missed, for example, that the bill makes it illegal to “advise” an abortion after the 12th week, even if that care in another state is the best medically necessary course for a patient.

    When it was pointed out to her recently, she was at first at a loss for words.

    “That is not good,” she said, “I don’t know what to say about that.”

    She paused.

    “That’s awful.”


    - - - Updated - - -

    Rape, Incest Exceptions To Louisiana Abortion Ban Rejected By GOP Lawmakers

    While Republican lawmakers ultimately decided the fate of the bill, voting 10-5 along party lines to reject the bill and prevent it from being debated by the full House, they gave little to no reasoning for their opposition to the legislation during the meeting.

    A similar bill that would have added exceptions for rape and incest if the pregnant patient is a minor met the same fate Wednesday — with the committee voting 9-5 against it.

  9. #6629
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Good luck selling external things to the pregnancy as enough of a risk to terminate the pregnancy prior to labor and delivery. This is a breaking point. Say what you want about uncaring and torture, but holy cow if that's what you consider acceptable as an alternative, you and I are never going to agree.
    It's all health related, and therefore politicians should have no say in how the doctor and patient choose to handle it. And this doesn't hinge on external factors anyway. Pregnancy in and of itself is life altering and potentially life threatening. THAT is why no one should ever be forced to endure a pregnancy when modern medicine has given us safe and effective ways of terminating it. Pregnancy is ALWAYS a risk, and you have absolutely no grounds to judge what is "enough of a risk" from the comfort of your never-going-to-get-pregnant-anyway position.

    And yeah, I'm well aware that we're never going to agree because I think it's absolutely absurd for the rights of a "potential person" to EVER supersede the rights of an actual person. A fetus isn't a person. A fetus isn't a baby.

    Curious though, if you believe that the health of the fetus trumps the choice of the woman, are you also in favor of laws that mandate women take certain vitamins and supplements as well as receive vaccinations in order to optimize fetal health and development? There are a number of foods with higher risks of listeria which can lead to miscarriage, so should there be laws that prevent women from eating those foods in order to minimize risk to the fetus? If a woman has a miscarriage as a result of listeriosis, should the Subway employee that served her the deli meat face charges as well? I mean, how far do you want to go in terms of protecting the unborn? My guess is your desire just extends to you not liking women being able to opt out of pregnancy and you don't REALLY care about the fetus' health and well-being.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    So keep it to the earlier gestational ages. The public is pretty complacent about abortion before 12 weeks. When you advocate pushing it later, and particularly past viability, myself and the public at large consider it only justified for the most extreme cases. Yes, even if you're incredibly concerned that laws allowing abortions in life-threatening emergencies are going to impact those that don't have life-threatening emergencies. Remember that the growing baby is capable of living independent of the mother, and no longer just something to be disregarded when weighed against external difficulties in living situation and family situation of the mother.
    The vast majority of "the public at large" isn't educated in medical matters, and more than half of them are incapable of even undergoing pregnancy to begin with, so while it matters from a voting standpoint, it has no bearing on what is right and how things SHOULD be. And since we're talking about late term abortions then it would be good to remind you that these encapsulate only a minuscule percent of abortions, so by definition they're ALL pretty much the most extreme cases.

    I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of doctors making attempts to deliver viable fetuses if that's an option that can be taken safely. What I'm sure you don't understand is that women who want to get an abortion aren't doing so because they want to kill the fetus, they just want to end the pregnancy. That's where the expertise of the doctors comes in to gauge what the best course of action would be based on a variety of factors beyond just "we're at this stage on the wikipedia prenatal development chart".

  10. #6630
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    It's all health related, and therefore politicians should have no say in how the doctor and patient choose to handle it.
    Well, you've explained yourself pretty fully on your beliefs and I have nothing further to add.


    The vast majority of "the public at large" isn't educated in medical matters, and more than half of them are incapable of even undergoing pregnancy to begin with, so while it matters from a voting standpoint, it has no bearing on what is right and how things SHOULD be.
    The creation and changing of laws are politics. Every human has a stake in who dies in their early gestational stages. Put simply, you don't get to tell other people that they have no say in it.

    And since we're talking about late term abortions then it would be good to remind you that these encapsulate only a minuscule percent of abortions, so by definition they're ALL pretty much the most extreme cases.
    You've been so good as to describe how nobody is allowed to question their performance, so appealing to their rarity is totally misplaced. They're also in no small part due to currently existing laws protecting post-viable babies that Democrats lately have been unable to defend.

    I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of doctors making attempts to deliver viable fetuses if that's an option that can be taken safely. What I'm sure you don't understand is that women who want to get an abortion aren't doing so because they want to kill the fetus, they just want to end the pregnancy. That's where the expertise of the doctors comes in to gauge what the best course of action would be based on a variety of factors beyond just "we're at this stage on the wikipedia prenatal development chart".
    I guess it's pretty unfortunate for them that an abortion kills the baby and ends the pregnancy. We have some procedures under the banner of preterm births that manage to deliver a living baby while ending the pregnancy, and they're also done in emergencies of many kinds.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  11. #6631
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Drivel, bullshit and some nonsense.
    You absolutely have not in any meaningful way addressed the question of how the hypothetical rights of a hypothetical future human trump the rights of a living breathing person. Or for that matter how the rights of one person override the rights of another.

    Nothing you say is rooted in any internally consistent value system.

    You just hate women and think that a minority of religious fundamentalist via judicial capture and gerrymandering should have the right to impose their arbitrary fact free and inconsistent moral system on everyone else.

    I lack the words to politely express how much of despicable, disgusting, psychotic and vile person you are.

  12. #6632
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    37,002
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Democrats have refused to endorse any restrictions on late term abortions for some time now. I'm not going to apologize for noticing that.
    And? You saw the graph of when abortions happen. Nobody gets an abortion in the third trimester save for extreme circumstances. We're already seeing that Republican states are having doctors simply refuse to perform life saving abortions because they don't want to get in legal hot water with the terribly written conservative laws.

    Conservatives are not pro life, they are pro birth. And fuck the woman carrying. You can claim otherwise all you want. Actions speak louder than words, and it's clear conservatives don't give a single shit about life, just about birthing children.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Since you vanished from the thread the last time these images were provided, please drop the late term abortion nonsense. I realize it's the Fox News talking point marching orders you're getting, but you need to think for yourself for a change rather than parroting everything you hear.



    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  13. #6633
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Every human has a stake in who dies in their early gestational stages.
    HA! What a fucking joke coming from the side that for the most part tends to go through life with an "I got mine so fuck everyone else" mentality. This might be one of the most ridiculous and hypocritical things you've said so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You've been so good as to describe how nobody is allowed to question their performance, so appealing to their rarity is totally misplaced. They're also in no small part due to currently existing laws protecting post-viable babies that Democrats lately have been unable to defend.
    I'm not appealing to their rarity. I don't really care how rare they are since that doesn't really factor into how I came to my conclusions. YOU'RE the one that wants to focus on the extremes, either the ones you're fine condoning or the ones you want to legislate against. You said "the public at large consider it only justified for the most extreme cases" and ALL late term abortions are by definition the most extreme cases. If you want to argue that they should only be allowed if pregnancy poses an increased risk to the life or health of the woman then you should be educated on the fact that ALL pregnancies pose an increased risk to the life and health of the woman (no surprise that most of the lawmakers who pushed for these laws were men and had no idea what they were talking about).

    If anything they (late term abortions) are more common than they should be due to the roadblocks that so many conservative states put in front of women who wish they could get them in a more timely matter. Roadblocks in terms of legislature, access, and societal pressures (often motivated by religion).

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    We have some procedures under the banner of preterm births that manage to deliver a living baby while ending the pregnancy, and they're also done in emergencies of many kinds.
    And what's your point? You think it's a better outcome to increase the infant mortality rate as well as the number of children with severe neurodevelopmental issues being surrendered to the state by pushing for more extreme preterm deliveries (which most facilities can't even handle anyway)? That's how you show that you really care about babies? Time and time again I'm reminded of how little you actually value human life...

  14. #6634
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    And? You saw the graph of when abortions happen. Nobody gets an abortion in the third trimester save for extreme circumstances.
    Then make it illegal but for extreme circumstances.

    these images were provided
    Frequency, including frequency of something that should be illegal, is not argument for making it legal. I gave the example of maternal infanticide for very infrequent; still illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    HA! What a fucking joke coming from the side that for the most part tends to go through life with an "I got mine so fuck everyone else" mentality. This might be one of the most ridiculous and hypocritical things you've said so far.



    I'm not appealing to their rarity. I don't really care how rare they are since that doesn't really factor into how I came to my conclusions. YOU'RE the one that wants to focus on the extremes, either the ones you're fine condoning or the ones you want to legislate against. You said "the public at large consider it only justified for the most extreme cases" and ALL late term abortions are by definition the most extreme cases. If you want to argue that they should only be allowed if pregnancy poses an increased risk to the life or health of the woman then you should be educated on the fact that ALL pregnancies pose an increased risk to the life and health of the woman (no surprise that most of the lawmakers who pushed for these laws were men and had no idea what they were talking about).

    If anything they (late term abortions) are more common than they should be due to the roadblocks that so many conservative states put in front of women who wish they could get them in a more timely matter. Roadblocks in terms of legislature, access, and societal pressures (often motivated by religion).



    And what's your point? You think it's a better outcome to increase the infant mortality rate as well as the number of children with severe neurodevelopmental issues being surrendered to the state by pushing for more extreme preterm deliveries (which most facilities can't even handle anyway)? That's how you show that you really care about babies? Time and time again I'm reminded of how little you actually value human life...
    I have recently been cautioned that this type of debate involves high standards of reasonableness and appropriate ways of discussing abortion and its alternatives. I do not believe I can adequately respond to points involving "how little you actually value human life" without being a party to unreasonable and inconsiderate lines in this debate, in the context of preferring abortion over pre-term delivery and full-term labor. I do not think I can address questions around ""I got mine so fuck everyone else" mentality," when it does not itself respect the sensitivity and reasonableness standards. My apologies.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-05-15 at 05:22 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  15. #6635
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,539
    Evil. These people are absolutely fucking evil. It is now blatantly immoral and wrong to obey the law in Louisiana. What the HELL is wrong with them? No exceptions for rape and incest, EVEN IF THEY'RE A MINOR... absolutely disgusting.

    I wonder if these are the same people like that one crazy preacher who was going off saying you "can't be a Christian if you vote Democrat". Ugh.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Then make it illegal but for extreme circumstances.
    The problem is something we're seeing repeatedly in other areas: if you make it illegal, even with "exceptions for extreme circumstances", then women are going to die. Why? Because any limitations whatsoever constitute outside pressure, and that outside pressure will make doctors hesitant, and that hesitancy will cost lives. I apologize if I've not always been the most civil with you, but you have to understand that anything that could threaten a doctor's job or potentially put them in prison is going to create roadblocks, and those roadblocks will inevitably endanger women who need urgent and immediate treatment.

  16. #6636
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,143
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Then make it illegal but for extreme circumstances.
    Why?

    If nobody gets late-term abortions outside extreme circumstances, why would you need a law to criminalize the late-term abortions without such circumstances that already aren't happening?

    There's no reason for this. Just an expression of misogyny.

    If you think "ALL pregnancies post an increased risk to the life and health of the woman," then by definition you've broadened every abortion performed as justified based on risk to the life and health of the woman.
    And given that the sentence is question is just a simple true fact, yes.

    What's your next deflection to try and justify blatant misogyny?

    First time I've heard of societal pressures in terms of a roadblock. Yes, killing your own baby will always carry some stigma. People also receive pressure from partners and friends to abort the baby and "get rid of the problem," but choose to keep it against such pressures. I'm glad they receive love and support from the pro-life side.
    Abortions still kill precisely zero babies.

    The number one option should be to counsel and seek care for the woman to carry it to term, as many of the less-extreme doctors already do
    Why?

    I've literally never seen an argument for this which wasn't either misogyny or religious extremism. So go on; explain yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    The problem is something we're seeing repeatedly in other areas: if you make it illegal, even with "exceptions for extreme circumstances", then women are going to die. Why? Because any limitations whatsoever constitute outside pressure, and that outside pressure will make doctors hesitant, and that hesitancy will cost lives. I apologize if I've not always been the most civil with you, but you have to understand that anything that could threaten a doctor's job or potentially put them in prison is going to create roadblocks, and those roadblocks will inevitably endanger women who need urgent and immediate treatment.
    That's not a "problem" of these kinds of laws. It's the goal. Make abortion more difficult to access where you can't ban it, and the "bad" women who want an abortion but can't get one will be appropriately "punished" by being forced to carry to term against their will, or possibly die in the process.

    That's the goal. The only reason these laws get made.


  17. #6637
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Then make it illegal but for extreme circumstances.
    To explain it in a way even a retard should understand: when faced with two bad choices, a doctor will sooner let a woman die and deal with the up to his malpractice insurance, than go to prison because a GOP pencil-pusher questions his definition of "life threatening".
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  18. #6638
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you think "ALL pregnancies post an increased risk to the life and health of the woman,"
    This is not a "think". This is an objective statement of fact. You may not realize that you've written something objectively true, but you have.

  19. #6639
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    To explain it in a way even a retard should understand: when faced with two bad choices, a doctor will sooner let a woman die and deal with the up to his malpractice insurance, than go to prison because a GOP pencil-pusher questions his definition of "life threatening".
    As I said above, tehdang knows this. It's the intended outcome. Intimidate doctors and women, and ensure the system generates harm for women who want an abortion, because in his view they shouldn't want one, and if they do, they deserve harm.


  20. #6640
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    Evil. These people are absolutely fucking evil. It is now blatantly immoral and wrong to obey the law in Louisiana. What the HELL is wrong with them? No exceptions for rape and incest, EVEN IF THEY'RE A MINOR... absolutely disgusting.

    I wonder if these are the same people like that one crazy preacher who was going off saying you "can't be a Christian if you vote Democrat". Ugh.
    The refusal to allow the exceptions for minor truly made the whole thing even more disgusting.

    A similar bill that would have added exceptions for rape and incest if the pregnant patient is a minor met the same fate Wednesday — with the committee voting 9-5 against it.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-05-15 at 05:05 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •