3 ms·

> Only if you suck down way too much of the conservative news. The right wing media here makes up a lot of this bullshit that has zero basis in reality. Is the

> Only if you suck down way too much of the conservative news. The right wing media here makes up a lot of this bullshit that has zero basis in reality. Is the BBC conservative news and/or right wing media? > Find one elected democratic official at the congressional level that says the day before birth is an acceptable solution. Here you go: >> The Democrat who sponsored the measure said it would allow abortions at any point in pregnancy up until the point of childbirth in certain cases. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307 > Meanwhile look at the actual laws conservative states are passing. They are going for a total ban even in the case of rape and horrific birth defects. Don't both sides this. It's not even close. This further reinforces my point above about the debate in the US being done at extremities. Alabama (I think) just had their abortion ban so extreme (defining life at conception) that they accidentally outlawed In-vitro Fertilization! So back to my original point, I'm assuming you are pro-choice from your comment. Where do you draw the line? How many weeks is ok?

pixl97 3y ago
For normal non-life threatening situations where the person is not deprived of medical care, probably somewhere around 20 weeks... >Similar to previous years, in 2021, women in their twenties accounted for more than half of abortions (57.0%). Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation For medical conditions that threaten the life of the mother there shouldn't be a limit, the life of the host should never be compromised, though in late stage pregnancy when the fetus would be viable outside the womb care should be taken to take this avenue first.
- freedomben 3y ago
  We agree! (well I don't know that I would say exactly 20 weeks, but it would be somewhere around there, and I fully agree about life of the mother and also considerations for if the fetus can survive outside of the womb). So this is an example of the individual nuance I mentioned above. But, if we were to have this discussion in a Democratic political setting, many (not all) would agree with us, but there would be quibbling over how we define "threaten the life of the mother" and also what sort of evidence/justification the doctor would need to provide (if any). Also if it hadn't happened yet, at some point here if you identify as a man, your opinion is out. I think many people on here are misunderstanding that I'm criticizing the left but not the right. I think the right's position of life at conception is much more extreme than the average on the left. But there is definitely extremism on the left, and it tends to be at the party level.
baseballdork 3y ago
Why keep out the context included in that bbc article? > Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed. > The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk . > The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law. This isn't "let anyone have an abortion at any time", like you're implying.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > This isn't "let anyone have an abortion at any time", like you're implying. I implied nothing of the sort. I'm disappointed that you inferred that, and that tells me that I could do better in the future (although I'm not entirely sure how, see below), but it's still on you for making assumptions about what you think I believe based on my comment. If you read my entire comment you'll see stuff like: > Individual people often have considerable more nuance, but that nuance is not allowed in the political discussions in both major parties. Please, show me where a major Democratic party discussion has taken place where they drew a line. I've shown you one already. > On the left, if you try to draw a line at some point, if you are a man, you will be dismissed immediately and told that you have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Either gender, you will quickly end up in a position where you are trying to get between a woman and her doctor and trying to have the government make medical decisions. And that's the most charitable take they will have for you. Sometimes it can get much, much worse. Have you really never seen this?
  - baseballdork 3y ago
    > I implied nothing of the sort. You're right, you outright stated it, instead of implying it: > On the other side you argue for no restrictions, typically until the day before birth. > Please, show me where a major Democratic party discussion has taken place where they drew a line. I've shown you one already. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You just provided a link to a bbc article where the democrats draw a line.
jgwil2 3y ago
>> On the other side you argue for no restrictions, typically until the day before birth. >> The Democrat who sponsored the measure said it would allow abortions at any point in pregnancy up until the point of childbirth in certain cases. The phrase "in certain cases" clearly implies that there are, in fact, restrictions, so you're just wrong to go on the example you've provided. Further, you've said this position is "typical" and yet you only provided one example that doesn't even appear to actually support your claim.
- freedomben 3y ago
  I'll rollback my use of the word "typical" somewhat, but it is something I see commonly among people who are strongly/ideologically associated with the Democrat Party or consider themselves "very progressive." And the example I provided was a proposed law, not just some random internet comment. If it was a proposed law, does it really seem unlikely that people would argue for it and/or believe it? Remember, the original context of this discussion is regarding uniformity of beliefs between people in Europe vs. people in the US

pixl97 3y ago

For normal non-life threatening situations where the person is not deprived of medical care, probably somewhere around 20 weeks... >Similar to previous years, in 2021, women in their twenties accounted for more than half of abortions (57.0%). Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation For medical conditions that threaten the life of the mother there shouldn't be a limit, the life of the host should never be compromised, though in late stage pregnancy when the fetus would be viable outside the womb care should be taken to take this avenue first.

freedomben 3y ago
We agree! (well I don't know that I would say exactly 20 weeks, but it would be somewhere around there, and I fully agree about life of the mother and also considerations for if the fetus can survive outside of the womb). So this is an example of the individual nuance I mentioned above. But, if we were to have this discussion in a Democratic political setting, many (not all) would agree with us, but there would be quibbling over how we define "threaten the life of the mother" and also what sort of evidence/justification the doctor would need to provide (if any). Also if it hadn't happened yet, at some point here if you identify as a man, your opinion is out. I think many people on here are misunderstanding that I'm criticizing the left but not the right. I think the right's position of life at conception is much more extreme than the average on the left. But there is definitely extremism on the left, and it tends to be at the party level.

baseballdork 3y ago

Why keep out the context included in that bbc article? > Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed. > The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk . > The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law. This isn't "let anyone have an abortion at any time", like you're implying.

freedomben 3y ago
> This isn't "let anyone have an abortion at any time", like you're implying. I implied nothing of the sort. I'm disappointed that you inferred that, and that tells me that I could do better in the future (although I'm not entirely sure how, see below), but it's still on you for making assumptions about what you think I believe based on my comment. If you read my entire comment you'll see stuff like: > Individual people often have considerable more nuance, but that nuance is not allowed in the political discussions in both major parties. Please, show me where a major Democratic party discussion has taken place where they drew a line. I've shown you one already. > On the left, if you try to draw a line at some point, if you are a man, you will be dismissed immediately and told that you have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Either gender, you will quickly end up in a position where you are trying to get between a woman and her doctor and trying to have the government make medical decisions. And that's the most charitable take they will have for you. Sometimes it can get much, much worse. Have you really never seen this?
- baseballdork 3y ago
  > I implied nothing of the sort. You're right, you outright stated it, instead of implying it: > On the other side you argue for no restrictions, typically until the day before birth. > Please, show me where a major Democratic party discussion has taken place where they drew a line. I've shown you one already. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You just provided a link to a bbc article where the democrats draw a line.

jgwil2 3y ago

>> On the other side you argue for no restrictions, typically until the day before birth. >> The Democrat who sponsored the measure said it would allow abortions at any point in pregnancy up until the point of childbirth in certain cases. The phrase "in certain cases" clearly implies that there are, in fact, restrictions, so you're just wrong to go on the example you've provided. Further, you've said this position is "typical" and yet you only provided one example that doesn't even appear to actually support your claim.

freedomben 3y ago
I'll rollback my use of the word "typical" somewhat, but it is something I see commonly among people who are strongly/ideologically associated with the Democrat Party or consider themselves "very progressive." And the example I provided was a proposed law, not just some random internet comment. If it was a proposed law, does it really seem unlikely that people would argue for it and/or believe it? Remember, the original context of this discussion is regarding uniformity of beliefs between people in Europe vs. people in the US