A rare Trump vs. MAGA disagreement

[ChloeTzang]

That is easy to say now. When the nation is much poorer, disability income will be a fading memory. The options will be work or die. Prenatal scanning such as ultrasounds will also be forgotten. Parents won't know what they're getting until birth. Babies born with defects so severe they will obviously never work and support themselves or their families may be routinely killed.

Canada's already getting there with their assisted dying legislation. Not a big step from that to killing babies with major birth defects.

 

[ChloeTzang]

The first trimester would be 13 weeks, not 8. At eight weeks, some women don't even know for sure they're pregnant yet.
And elective abortions in the 3rd trimester are literally unheard of. They likely would be in the 2nd instead, if not for all the roadblocks anti-choicers have thrown up, like mandatory waiting periods and so forth.

Yes, I don't agree with the mandatory waiting periods if the criteria are clear, and a lot of States are opting for criteria like these, with variations, which I think is appropriate.

 

[Aglaopheme]

While the armies of righteousness and liberty shout and pound keyboards, the solution that will probably happen is we wait a while as demographics, occupations, and priorities change. We have a somewhat inverted age pyramid. Urbanization will reach a peak and then decline as we return to a more agricultural economy, where kids are assets, not liabilities. Abortion may become as rare as it was before industrialization, maybe not done at all if environmental pollution knocks fertility down for centuries.

Um, when were abortions ever rare? Never, the answer is never.

As with most laws, abortion restrictions were racially motivated.

But before abortions were banned, a woman known as Madame Restell ran abortion businesses from New York to Philadelphia and Boston. Her main clientele, Reagan wrote, were "married, white, native-born Protestant women of upper and middle classes."

Abortions, birth control and general efforts to manage the timing of pregnancy meant birth rates among white women were falling just as immigrants streamed into the United States. And the idea of being out-populated by "others" worried some anti-abortion activists like Storer. He argued that whites should be populating the country, including the West and the South. Better them than blacks, Catholics, Mexicans, Chinese or Indians, he said, according to Reagan.

"Shall these regions be filled by our own children or by those of aliens? This is a question our women must answer; upon their loins depends the future destiny of the nation," Storer said, according to Reagan's research.

"White male patriotism," she wrote, "demanded that maternity be enforced among white Protestant women.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states

 

[Chernosoth]

Um, when were abortions ever rare? Never, the answer is never.

As with most laws, abortion restrictions were racially motivated.


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states

When the population was 90% farmers. They tried for large families because they knew they would lose some to illnesses and accidents. With that in our future plus lower fertility, racial BS will be less attractive to societies struggling to survive. Healthy enough to work and reproduce will be much more important than skin color, which will probably blend into a tan or light brown as the races blend and adapt to outdoor life and climate change here.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Neither do I, but personally I think it should be restricted to the 1st 8 weeks, life threatening health issues for the mother, and with exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking until 12 weeks of pregnancy - and in all those case it should be readily available with no delays. An outright ban is excessive, but on the other hand, allowing abortions into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters except for genuinely life threatening issues is plain baby-murder.

Arbitrary and capricious time limits.

My opinion is based on science, not fee-fees.
22 weeks is the tipping point.
Science has shown those of us with functioning craniums that before 22 weeks a fetus is not viable outside of the womb.
A non-viable fetus should have zero rights. Nada. Zilch.
To presume otherwise indicates that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother, which would make pregnant women second-class citizens by definition, which is contrary to the concept of freedom in America.

After 22 weeks, the state has a LIMITED interest in the fetus' rights.

Your blather about "plain baby-murder" is a crass "appeal to emotion" which looks good on a bumper sticker but has no grounding in reality. Texas had a near ban on second and third trimester abortions prior to the court temporarily allowing abortion drugs by mail and what happened? A lot more babies. Specifically, a lot more babies with severe birth defects, which will strain the public safety net for the foreseeable future.

The simple fact is, without access to post-viability abortion, we will continue to see more and more severely deformed human beings being born, both mentally challenged and physically challenged. We cannot Vetteman them out of existence (i.e. "out of sight, out of mind"). They will live miserable lives and those that do not become "wards of the state" will likely live their lives in squalor and misery, not unlike TrailerHitch and Wat Tyler.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Arbitrary and capricious time limits.

My opinion is based on science, not fee-fees.
22 weeks is the tipping point.
Science has shown those of us with functioning craniums that before 22 weeks a fetus is not viable outside of the womb.
A non-viable fetus should have zero rights. Nada. Zilch.
To presume otherwise indicates that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother, which would make pregnant women second-class citizens by definition, which is contrary to the concept of freedom in America.

After 22 weeks, the state has a LIMITED interest in the fetus' rights.

Your blather about "plain baby-murder" is a crass "appeal to emotion" which looks good on a bumper sticker but has no grounding in reality. Texas had a near ban on second and third trimester abortions prior to the court temporarily allowing abortion drugs by mail and what happened? A lot more babies. Specifically, a lot more babies with severe birth defects, which will strain the public safety net for the foreseeable future.

The simple fact is, without access to post-viability abortion, we will continue to see more and more severely deformed human beings being born, both mentally challenged and physically challenged. We cannot Vetteman them out of existence (i.e. "out of sight, out of mind"). They will live miserable lives and those that do not become "wards of the state" will likely live their lives in squalor and misery, not unlike TrailerHitch and Wat Tyler.

I can actually agree with a lot of that except perhaps the 22 weeks, but as a general guideline and a statement of some of the issues that arise from a near ban on second and third trimester abortions, I would agree. There ARE major defects and life-threatening health issues that justify abortion, IMO. It's a case of degree, and where the cutoffs are, and that is going to be determined state by state. 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks ---- that month or two makes a difference, and for me the big thing is that the fetus should NEVER suffer. Some abortion techniques are just downright sadistic. THAT is also very important. Anyhow, I can see we more or less agree, just a matter of degree, not on the approach.

 

[Chernosoth]

Arbitrary and capricious time limits.

My opinion is based on science, not fee-fees.
22 weeks is the tipping point.
Science has shown those of us with functioning craniums that before 22 weeks a fetus is not viable outside of the womb.

At extreme expense that won't be available to most parents. Without the extreme expense, somewhere over 30 is more feasible.

 

[YDB95]

Some abortion techniques are just downright sadistic.

No, they just sound that way pulled out of context, which is undoubtedly where you heard them.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's the end goal of a lot of the fundamentalist anti-abortionists, but SCOTUS already ruled it's a State by State decision and I can't see SCOTUS changing that one at this point. So whatever they try at the Federal level will just get turned down by SCOTUS, as they should. That was a constitutionally sounds decision, says the noted legal expert, Chloe. LOL. But whatever, SCOTUS decisions are not lightly overturned. They will never get a national abortion ban, and depending on what state you're in, you just move if that's what you want.

Which will only accelerate our split into hard red and hard blue states, so far far better to keep emphasizing State rights, and getting the Feds out of as much as possible, to reduce the possibility of fucking each other off enough for the shooting to start. We have to recognize that we have a population that is diametrically split down the middle and adapt. That means more State rights and responsibilities and less Federal intrusion. It also means separating off blue cities from the red hinterland. I mean we already have blue Oregon and Washington wanting to separate from Seattle and Portland, and Northern California (Jefferson) wanting nothing to do with Commiefornia. Best we agree to legitimize all of this and live and let live. Difficult for lefties, I know, but really, what do we need the Feds for?

Defense. Foreign Affairs. Regulating interstate agreements. Very little else.

You have to take into consideration that middle America is not the hyperbolic nutbags that loony lit posters are. Adrina and Laz would have you believe we’re teeter tottering on civil war over abortion. Most Americans are middle of the road where abortion is concerned, believing we should have some restrictions but not banned. States that push for an all out ban will lose politically. IMHO

 

[Aglaopheme]

When the population was 90% farmers. They tried for large families because they knew they would lose some to illnesses and accidents. With that in our future plus lower fertility, racial BS will be less attractive to societies struggling to survive. Healthy enough to work and reproduce will be much more important than skin color, which will probably blend into a tan or light brown as the races blend and adapt to outdoor life and climate change here.

That is pure speculation on your part. 90% of the population were people that farmed for themselves. More kids equals more mouths to feed.

 

[adrina]

When the population was 90% farmers. They tried for large families because they knew they would lose some to illnesses and accidents. With that in our future plus lower fertility, racial BS will be less attractive to societies struggling to survive. Healthy enough to work and reproduce will be much more important than skin color, which will probably blend into a tan or light brown as the races blend and adapt to outdoor life and climate change here.

And ya know, no birth control and marital rape was not against the law.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You have to take into consideration that middle America is not the hyperbolic nutbags that loony lit posters are. Adrina and Laz would have you believe we’re teeter tottering on civil war over abortion. Most Americans are middle of the road where abortion is concerned, believing we should have some restrictions but not banned. States that push for an all out ban will lose politically. IMHO

Exactly. I for one am for restrictions, but not the crazy blanket ban that's advocated by some, and I would vote against a party that advocated a blanket ban regardless of their other policies. There are very good reasons for abortions. I think for most of us, it's a question of what the limits are.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Exactly. I for one am for restrictions, but not the crazy blanket ban that's advocated by some, and I would vote against a party that advocated a blanket ban regardless of their other policies. There are very good reasons for abortions. I think for most of us, it's a question of what the limits are.

Why should there be any limits? Why not leave it up to women and their doctors?

 

[TrailerHitch]

Why should there be any limits? Why not leave it up to women and their doctors?

So if there are no limits are you okay with live birth abortions? Killing the baby after birth?

 

[ChloeTzang]

Why should there be any limits? Why not leave it up to women and their doctors?

So you want to allow babies to be murdered just because some psycho decides she wants to kill her baby? Read the posts from some of these people.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

So you want to allow babies to be murdered just because some psycho decides she wants to kill her baby? Read the posts from some of these people.

Which people are you talking about?

If you really believed abortion was “murdering babies” you would push for a total ban, you wouldn’t allow it with restrictions.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Which people are you talking about?

If you really believed abortion was “murdering babies” you would push for a total ban, you wouldn’t allow it with restrictions.

Splitting hairs there and the reasons have been debated ad infinitum so that's not even worth getting into.

 

[ll74]

Abortion doesn't involve babies

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Splitting hairs there and the reasons have been debated ad infinitum so that's not even worth getting into.

Restrictive abortion laws kill women. When a woman needs a late-term abortion it’s usually a matter of life and death. There are no elective late-term abortions.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Restrictive abortion laws kill women. When a woman needs a late-term abortion it’s usually a matter of life and death. There are no elective late-term abortions.

Life threatening medical reasons is the usual exception. But don't forget democrats want elective late-term abortions all the way up to and including live birth. That's already been clearly stated.

 

[ll74]

Life threatening medical reasons is the usual exception. But don't forget democrats want elective late-term abortions all the way up to and including live birth. That's already been clearly stated.

The majority of Democrats support returning to Roe viability restrictions.

There has been no effort by any Democrat to allow elective late-term abortions up to and including live birth.

 

[adrina]

Life threatening medical reasons is the usual exception. But don't forget democrats want elective late-term abortions all the way up to and including live birth. That's already been clearly stated.

Find a documented case of an elective third term abortion.

 

[jaF0]

Anybody (else) wish Chloe's Mom had done so?

 

[jaF0]

If you really believed abortion was “murdering babies” you would push for a total ban, you wouldn’t allow it with restrictions.

The guy in Colorado that thought that is still in a Forensic Hospital, deemed unfit to stand trial.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Anybody (else) wish Chloe's Mom had done so?

I don't usually put people on Ignore, but if you want to get personal, you can fuck right off.