How many men have no clue

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, they are, and yes, they have.

No, Nope.

ATS is filled with threads about leaders openly advocating for abortions to be legal and common right up until the head is about to pop out.

There is a time and a place for late term abortions, but they are never done on a healthy fetus. There are situations in which a woman's water may break, and/or she goes into labor early, and her fetus is so diseased and deformed that it's "incompatible with life", and it will only know suffering and extreme pain before it dies. So, doctors, according to the wishes of the mother/parents, may rush to try to terminate that fetus' life before its born, so it doesn't have to languish in pain, and its parent don't have to watch it suffer and eventually die an excruciatingly painful death.

It happens, but it's rare. Nobody is bragging about or touting such tragedies.

These types of situations, under Roe, were always left up to the states. With Roe gone, they still are up to the states. Even Alabama allows for such late term abortions.

On August 15, 2019, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed a bill into law that bans nearly all abortions in the state. The only exceptions are when the life of the woman is at risk or when a fetus has a fatal disorder. This new Abortion Law in Alabama is considered to be one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

usabortionlaws.com...

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

First breath, the "cutting of the cord"....

A certificate of live birth. A birthday and an age.

So you agree.
Other than legalese.
It's the lawful killing of a human beng.

It's the lawful killing of a non-viable, potential human being.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

*sigh*

It would take anyone who cares a short time to search through the ATS database for the last few years and find plenty of examples. As usual, you simply lie. As usual, it's not even a very good lie.

I won't spend the short time to do so for you. You would simply ignore everything. Again, as usual.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I'm here to argue on behalf of women who seek on demand abortion pre-viability.

That would be best, but clinics seem to have little issues with late term abortions. Here is my 30 second search of page one.

Boulder Abortion Clinic – Member of NAF and ACN

1st Trimester Procedure Abortion up to 13 weeks
2nd Trimester Procedure Abortion up to 27 weeks
3rd Trimester Procedure Abortion over 28 weeks for Fetal Indications

Washington Surgi-Clinic – Member of NAF and ACN

First trimester abortion up to 12 weeks
Second trimester abortion 12-29.5 weeks
Local and General Anesthesia

Michael Benjamin, MD – Member of NAF and ACN

Abortion Pill from 3-10 weeks
Procedure Abortion through 15 weeks
If over 15 weeks, we secure appt and funding for out-state care
Specialize in fetal anomalies and maternal health issues
Enhanced Private Abortion Available
Financial Assistance

All Women’s Health Center of Orlando – Member of NAF and ACN

Abortion Pill up to 10 weeks
Procedure Abortions up to 22 weeks
IV Sedation / Nitrous Oxide
Insurance Accepted / Financial Assistance / Discounts Available
Enhanced Private Abortion Available
Both Male & Female Physicians

CARE Clinics for Abortion & Reproductive Excellence – Member of NAF and ACN

Abortion Pill up to 10.6 weeks
Procedure Abortion up to 28+ weeks
Late Abortion for Fetal Indications 25 weeks and up
IV Sedation

Summit Women’s Center Detroit – Member of NAF and ACN

Abortion Pill up to 11 weeks
Procedure Abortion up to 24 weeks
Ask about Financial Assistance

Heritage Clinic for Women – Member of NAF

Abortion Pill up to 10 weeks
Procedure Abortions up to 22 weeks
Conscious Sedation
Financial Assistance

Birth Control Care Center – Member of NAF

Abortion Pill up to 10 weeks
Procedure Abortions up to 24 weeks
Late Abortion for Fetal Indication
Local or Full Sedation

You've mentioned the EU, and that some countries only allow on demand abortion up to 12-15 weeks. That would be an acceptable scenario if the USA also had free universal health care and state sponsored abortions, so women wouldn't have to scramble to find a clinic, travel arrangements, childcare, the $$$ for it all, then have a vaginal ultra-sound, see a screen shot of the fetus, listen to a "heart-beat", undergo counseling and waiting period before having the procedure.

Many states have such financial support, but I'm not for free universal health care unless it is State level. We need a complete revamp of the system and have more clinic level care that a person can pay cash in about the range of a copay to see someone for an issue, or just health maintenance. I have seen clinics outside of the insurance umbrellas and they can be very reasonable in out-of-pocket cost. The problem is the 600 dollar doctor visit that is copaid to 40 bucks, so why should it be 600 in the first place when you can get the same care in a clinic for 30 bucks that is not insurance related? Abortions are in the same group as non-insurance care and so they are not that expensive, and cheaper today than 40 years ago.

When I go to lets say Holland they have free health care, they are also a population of 6 million, so a rather small number in comparison to us. They also have a much different lifestyle than Americans that is very minimalistic as in small flat to live, not much in it, basic clothe shoes etc. Many have just bikes as they live, eat, work, play all within a small area.

If you make less than about 65k you pay about 38% in taxes, and if you make more than that you pay about 50%, then you have a set sales tax on most staple items at 9% and some other taxes, so in the end you will be paying for that health care with a rather big chunk of your pay taken out. As a culture the Dutch live a very healthy lifestyle too, unlike Americans, so I have no clue as to what that tax would look like, but I really do not want to work my butt off for others who do not want to be healthy. The winning lottery ticket over there is to get disability and live free off the system, and many go this path too, so they also have their issues.

This is why I would not have an issue at a state level as people in the state would vote on it and pay for it and it would be much more manageable.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

The only difference between her argument and yours is, for the most part, "when".

I see both of you on the extreme ends of all this, so I disagree with both of you at some level.

When does a human being become a "person".
When does the Person-hood fairy show up to sprinkle the magic person-hood dust on the insignificant, subhuman, human being to grant it Person-hood.....
Same argument from both of you, for the most part.
She says after birth.
You say somewhere during gestation.
I say it is a human being, regardless.

When has always been the question... Do you agree with any reason to have an abortion, or do we just say there should be zero reasons as it is the taking of a human life? So in your view is "when" never?

a reply to: Xtrozero

That would be best, but clinics seem to have little issues with late term abortions.

Most clinic don't do late term abortions.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 93% of abortions in 2019 took place at or before 13 weeks gestation. About 6% occur between 14 and 20 weeks gestation.

Abortions being performed later in a pregnancy are rare; less than 1% occur at 21 weeks gestation or later, according to the CDC. Abortions around 21 weeks are often difficult to obtain because the procedure is costly, time-sensitive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers.

www.politifact.com...

And

Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestational age are rare. They are often difficult to obtain, as they are typically costly, time-intensive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers. Yet these abortions receive a disproportionate amount of attention in the news, policy and the law, and discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several policymakers have theorized about abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth.” In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the U.S. Discussion of this topic is further obscured due to the terms sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy– including “late-term,” “post-viability,” “partial birth,” “dismemberment” and “born-alive” abortions—despite many medical professionals criticizing and opposing their use.

www.kff.org...

Many states have such financial support, but I'm not for free universal health care unless it is State level.

It would have to be at state level, because of the Hyde Amendment. But look, I have no fantasy ideations of a fairy tale universal healthcare system in the USA, or even most states using tax dollars to pay for on demand abortions, in the near future, at all. That's why American women need a little more time than European women, to procure their abortions.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Once the definitions were clarified, it actually seems you and I are closer on this issue than anyone else. I'll admit, that's not what I would have expected earlier on in the thread. I would personally place the time limit much earlier than you, but I would also allow for more exceptions. I think we are after the same thing: to make abortion safe, legal whenever needed, and rare.

I have no clue to really what the line in the sand should be. When I see the heartbeat bill I think most women hardly know they are pregnant at 6 weeks, so as logical as it seems I'm not sure it is really viable to use. I just don't want abortion to be the first choice and it has become that for many. I have seen it in practice as in a clinic makes a ton more money on abortions with very little time invested compared to other options of keeping the child. Rare to me is when a woman fines herself in a situation where having a child at that point would create great burden on her and it is a once in a life time event for them that they would need to deal mentally and emotional with down the road.

I may come across as somewhat anal on the definitions thing, but there's a good reason: I see words twisted into weapons so much on this issue. One poster likes to post "I SUPPORT LIVING CHILDREN" while advocating for abortion on demand... which is an oxymoron. Another is unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between a human being, a person, and a citizen; they pick and choose whichever term is more defensible to their agenda at that time, as though the words were the same. And those are just two examples of how the words can be twisted and connotated on purpose to support an agenda that otherwise would be seen clearly as unworkable.

Well both sides of the extremes do not want to budge off their definitions as it puts them into logic loops they do not want to deal with.

Pro-choice call the unborn an "it" "sack of cells" etc until the baby's first breath, so it magically transforms with that breath, but 2 mins before you can still suck the brains out and perform a still birth because it is not human yet, or maybe not even alive yet.

Pro-life...Its a human being at cell one, and I agree at the DNA level. When you ask them is there anytime an abortion is OK they think of the top three reasons, but don't want to say them because then you weaken your stance that even at cell one it has the same rights as the mother. If that is true then you can't really kill it to save the mother as then you are suggesting the mother is more important, so they don't answer and just repeat over and over its a human being.

Kind of hard to define things with all that going on.

I find myself in the same situation as you... when someone discounts the rights of the unborn, I feel the need to speak for them. When someone ignores the rights of the mothers, I feel the need to speak out for them as well. I also try to consider the rights of the fathers... sometimes I think I am the only one who speaks out for them. I don't have all the answers, but I think I at least know who all the players are.

TheRedneck

The liberals could have fixed this a number of times in the past with Congress making Roe basically moot, but they do not want it fixed as it is their war cry every election cycle and if they fixed it then they would not have that one point they use over and over for votes. I bet the timing of the reversal of Roe had them cheering in the streets as once again they can scream vote for us we will keep your abortion legal even though there will be no less legal abortions in 2023 as there was in any other previous year.

The sad thing about it is that the internet will be full of sites with information on homemade abortifacient methods and recipes of herbs and chemicals to use to bring on a "spontaneous abortion" for women to poor to travel to a state where abortion is legal. This will not end well!

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Yet, you are still Developing.
The stages of Human Development are known as the Human Life Cycle.
It is not always a positive growth, but you are still progressing, moving forward, along your life cycle.
Therefore, you are still "developing" because your life cycle is still developing.
You will continue to do so until you die and your life cycle is complete.

Whatever, you are using some extremely generalized view point of the word "developing" here to justify that at one cell it is a "cycle" and "developing" as any other time in the life of a person. I can't believe that you actually believe your own BS, or maybe the only person you are trying to convince is yourself.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Legally is all that matters when it comes to murder. Murder is a legal term, not a scientific one: the unlawful killing of another human. Once the term "unlawful" comes into play, the definition is legal.

I thought that's what I said.....

Abortion as birth control is wrong. Abortion is not a right in itself, but can be a necessity at times to procure other human rights.

We have agreed on that.

but a law does not magically apply to only one group

Which law are you talking about?

There are many instances where that abortion saves a life by taking one just a little before it will die anyway.

You would have to show me where you get the numbers for "many instances".
Does it happen? Yes but rarely.
Medical science has advanced to the point to where, in the majority of cases, they can save both lives. The "many instances" is a Faulty Generalization used by those who are afraid they may one day loose abortion on demand. Sadly, people fall for it because they haven't read the literature.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quadrivium

You are stretching the definition of "developing." "Developing" implies a positive change, as in a progress toward optimal. When one moves away from optimal, such as in the later stages of life, it is generally referred to as "regressing."

Xtrozero may be "following" his life cycle (as am I) but that does not necessarily mean he is "developing." Trust me, when you get to our stage of life, you won't consider yourself to be "developing" either.

TheRedneck

Not so with Human Development. It does not mean the same as "development".
There is a quantitative growth element involved and the results may be positive (your life begins, you grow, experience life, etc) or negative (aging, bad health, body shutting down, etc).
So yes, while you age, you are still progressing in your life cycle. This is where the qualitativeness of development comes in.
As a human being, you will continue progressing/developing along your life cycle.
You are in a constant state of development from the beginning until the end.

ETA:a reply to: Xtrozero

a reply to: olaru12

They don't care. The woman's life is of no importance to pro-lifers. They value the fetus above all else.

Women can go to hell for all they care as long as they deliver those babies.

originally posted by: olaru12
The sad thing about it is that the internet will be full of sites with information on homemade abortifacient methods and recipes of herbs and chemicals to use to bring on a "spontaneous abortion" for women to poor to travel to a state where abortion is legal. This will not end well!

Watch as RWNJ's try to sue the people posting those home remedies. Little girl sluts need to carry their gift rape babies to term no matter what.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Do you agree with any reason to have an abortion, or do we just say there should be zero reasons as it is the taking of a human life? So in your view is "when" never?

We have discussed this and I have answered this several times.
1) In the cases of rare cases of pregnancy due to rape, especially in children.
2) In the ultra rare cases of the mother's life being in danger.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I thought that's what I said.....

Which time? You seem to be using AugustusMasonicus' portable goal posts some... here's what you said about the legal aspect earlier in this thread:

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: TheRedneck

Abortion IS the premeditated killing of a human being. It is ending a human beings life cycle. It is removing all of the remaining ability for anything and everything they would or could ever do.
That is all I have been saying.
Never what laws should be or shouldn't be.
Never when person-hood magically appears.

I'm not going to debate a moving target. I won't play that game with AM, and I won't play that game with you. Pick a point and stick to it; you are either arguing the legal aspect of the issue or you are not.

Which law are you talking about?

ALL laws must apply equally to ALL. Period. I don't care if it's a law for jaywalking or a law against genocide. ALL laws must apply to ALL.

You would have to show me where you get the numbers for "many instances".

I did not look up any numbers; I have known and heard of, often in my area, problem pregnancies for decades. The majority of attempts at pregnancy never even make it to the point where anyone knows the woman was pregnant. More often, the fertilized egg cell does not implant or has such a serious defect that it simply dies within hours or days. That's what the menstrual cycle is for: to flush any residual "waste" from failed attempts. Dead fetal matter in the uterus tends to set up infections, which can easily be fatal unless treated. That is a very sensitive and vulnerable area for infections.

We cannot save "both lives" in "the majority of cases." Maybe that is true in later stages of pregnancy, but certainly not in the beginning stages. Ectopic pregnancies still happen. Miscarriages still happen. That is the "faulty generalization" going on here: you are taking a statement which may be true for late-term pregnancies and trying to generalize it to apply to all pregnancies. It does not work like that; I think almost everyone can agree (with notable exceptions of course) that late term abortions are very rarely needed. We are talking about ALL pregnancies, which includes those that the woman even does not know exist yet. You are now denying reality; a real shame since you made such a good argument before.

I guess that was just because the facts aligned with your goal, though.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a quantitative growth element involved and the results may be positive (your life begins, you grow, experience life, etc) or negative (aging, bad health, body shutting down, etc).

Yes, there is a quantitative element to development. However, the term itself connotates a qualitative element as well. The very term indicates that the quantitative aspect it refers to is not algebraic but positive.

When a family member is dying in the hospital, after all attempts to help them have failed, I hope you do not decide to tell their loved ones they are "only developing." That would not only be inaccurate, but a horrific insult as well. Not even a medical researcher would choose to describe the situation that way; they might refer to the patient as "regressing," but certainly not as "developing."

Humans follow their life cycle, from conception through death. Humans develop from conception through maturity, which is a positive progression toward their optimal condition. After maturity, humans begin to regress away from that optimal condition until the human body can no longer support its own life functions. Again, definitions are important.

TheRedneck

a reply to: VierEyes

The woman's life is of no importance to pro-lifers. They value the fetus above all else.

The unborn child's life is of no importance to pro-abortionists. They value everything above the child.

I find it highly, highly ironic that the person who has made the most hateful comments in this thread, even moreso than Sookiechacha if anyone can believe that, is now complaining that people don't value her enough.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What have I said that is hateful?

And I haven't complained about me. I've pointed out the truth, that pro-lifers couldn't care less about women.

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: olaru12

They don't care. The woman's life is of no importance to pro-lifers. They value the fetus above all else.A
Women can go to hell for all they care as long as they deliver those babies.

imo...they don't even really value the fetus. It's just part of the Rightwing control mechanism to keep the faithful in line. And after the child is born...mother and child are on their own, no support and vote down all social programs as to expensive for the nation. Just empty political posturing using "pro-life" as a political catch phrase, just like "pro choice" Truth be told, most of the GOPers I work for are pro choice but they dare not deviate from the approved talking points narrative if they want to remain Republican.

Politics is a dirty business...There's also a negative side.

a reply to: olaru12

That's right. They want the babies, but they don't want to pay for them after they're born.