JJ Husker Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, Archy1221 said: Ehhhh, it’s literally about 4 other people here in a hissy and bringing up strawman arguments. Since you continue to miss what I’m actually pointing out, which has to be on purpose at this point, I’ll ask you a few questions. 1) do you believe abortion should be legal in all cases? if no, what if any restrictions should be in place? (Not what you personally want, what the country should have) 2) do you think we should follow European Countries lead on how they view abortion? 3) if everyone in this country but me (I’m told I’m the only one out of 330 plus million people) thinks it’s ridiculous that an abortion would take place (viable healthy baby, healthy mother) sometime in the last trimester if zero restrictions were in place, then why not just say they don’t believe in those abortions since they will never happen anyways? Why even have that option if they will never happen anyways? Why not answer in the legal in most cases option? 4). If these 29% of Americans disagree that a healthy mother with a healthy baby should not be able to consult with a provider willing to abort during the third trimester, then why not say so? That is my entire argument that you all keep conflating to something else because you have no good answer for that question and desperately want to avoid it. The answer to #4 is… Because that is not how they perceived the choice. I’m quite certain those people would be in the “legal in certain cases” camp if they had any reason to trust that the government would construct these ban laws correctly. Alas, they know that a serious 3rd trimester medical issue will be met with cold hard laws with no leeway for common sense. That is why 29% chose to answer in all cases. It’s not because anyone really wants to terminate a 36 week pregnancy just because they changed their mind. That is the strawman that has been constructed. It doesn’t happen. The other reason is because, when it comes to legislation, there are only 2 camps; ban all that is possible and keep the government out of medical issues. We’ve seen endless situations recently where pregnant women with complications have been prohibited from receiving proper care because of newly enacted overzealous red state laws. The 29% are answering with that in mind. I mean c’mon, no mother wants to carry a baby for the first two trimesters and then eliminate it for no good reason. It’s why multiple people here are telling you that isn’t an actual problem. People that really don’t want a baby will get that abortion much sooner in the process. Unfortunately nobody is advocating for laws in between the extremes that the vast majority of people could support. It has become an all or none issue, like most all political matters have thanks to the extreme whackos. 4 Link to comment
commando Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 10 minutes ago, JJ Husker said: The answer to #4 is… Because that is not how they perceived the choice. I’m quite certain those people would be in the “legal in certain cases” camp if they had any reason to trust that the government would construct these ban laws correctly. Alas, they know that a serious 3rd trimester medical issue will be met with cold hard laws with no leeway for common sense. That is why 29% chose to answer in all cases. It’s not because anyone really wants to terminate a 36 week pregnancy just because they changed their mind. That is the strawman that has been constructed. It doesn’t happen. The other reason is because, when it comes to legislation, there are only 2 camps; ban all that is possible and keep the government out of medical issues. We’ve seen endless situations recently where pregnant women with complications have been prohibited from receiving proper care because of newly enacted overzealous red state laws. The 29% are answering with that in mind. I mean c’mon, no mother wants to carry a baby for the first two trimesters and then eliminate it for no good reason. It’s why multiple people here are telling you that isn’t an actual problem. People that really don’t want a baby will get that abortion much sooner in the process. Unfortunately nobody is advocating for laws in between the extremes that the vast majority of people could support. It has become an all or none issue, like most all political matters have thanks to the extreme whackos. women come up to me all the time with tears in their eyes begging me to impregnate them so they can be pregnant for 8 months them have an abortion party before the kid can be born. doesn't that happen to everyone here? 2 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, commando said: women come up to me all the time with tears in their eyes begging me to impregnate them so they can be pregnant for 8 months them have an abortion party before the kid can be born. doesn't that happen to everyone here? Apparently it is happening in some people’s imaginations. Oddly, it seems to be of paramount concern for those who desire near total bans. Weird. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, Archy1221 said: Ehhhh, it’s literally about 4 other people here in a hissy and bringing up strawman arguments. Since you continue to miss what I’m actually pointing out, which has to be on purpose at this point, I’ll ask you a few questions. 1) do you believe abortion should be legal in all cases? if no, what if any restrictions should be in place? (Not what you personally want, what the country should have) 2) do you think we should follow European Countries lead on how they view abortion? 3) if everyone in this country but me (I’m told I’m the only one out of 330 plus million people) thinks it’s ridiculous that an abortion would take place (viable healthy baby, healthy mother) sometime in the last trimester if zero restrictions were in place, then why not just say they don’t believe in those abortions since they will never happen anyways? Why even have that option if they will never happen anyways? Why not answer in the legal in most cases option? 4). If these 29% of Americans disagree that a healthy mother with a healthy baby should not be able to consult with a provider willing to abort during the third trimester, then why not say so? That is my entire argument that you all keep conflating to something else because you have no good answer for that question and desperately want to avoid it. It’s really hard to take you seriously when you continue to argue about something that doesn’t happen and is pretty much already illegal in the US. How I would have answered the poll question is, I support it being legal in most cases. I’m anti-abortion, in that I want to work hard to make abortion not needed. I’ve expressed all this multiple times. But, I don’t feel it’s right to make laws that prevent women from getting healthcare they really need. Again, nobody goes 8 months pregnant and all of a sudden decides, meh, I don’t want this kid. I’m getting an abortion. And, even if they did, they wouldn’t find a doctor to do it. what I’ve tried to do in this thread is explain to you how the 29% answered the question and why. It’s very different than how you characterize them…and you refuse to accept that and instead stick with your extreme belief of why they did. Abortions on a perfectly healthy baby and mother a day before a normal birth has been illegal in the US for a long time. But, you act like it actually happens. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 hour ago, JJ Husker said: It’s not because anyone really wants to terminate a 36 week pregnancy just because they changed their mind. That is the strawman that has been constructed. It doesn’t happen. Appreciate your measures response. One thing here, you latch on to 36weeks as if it’s the only example that was given. Forgetting about the other types of examples given. According to the KFF source Buster gave, 40% of abortions that happened at or after 20 weeks, patients said they just couldn’t make up their mind by then. 45% had a factor of patients claiming they just didn’t know they were pregnant (which in fact does happen, however I do not believe all 45% actually didn’t know yet it’s a convenient excuse) 1 hour ago, JJ Husker said: The 29% are answering with that in mind. I mean c’mon, no mother wants to carry a baby for the first two trimesters and then eliminate it for no good reason. It’s why multiple people here are telling you that isn’t an actual problem. As stated above, it depends on what you view as a good reason. And just an fyi….the data presented does not include Illinois or CA or DC. 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 hour ago, JJ Husker said: Apparently it is happening in some people’s imaginations. Oddly, it seems to be of paramount concern for those who desire near total bans. Weird. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: How I would have answered the poll question is, I support it being legal in most cases There ya go pal! See that wasn’t so hard. All the Huss and fuss only to come back to what I’ve been saying all the time. 54 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Abortions on a perfectly healthy baby and mother a day before a normal birth has been illegal in the US for a long time. But, you act like it actually happens. #1..I don’t act like it happens, nor have I said it happens (that I am aware of) but I have said 29% think it should be a legal option. Whether they would personally do it or not is beside the point. #2 you conveniently leave out the other scenarios I’ve mentioned that do actually happen. 1 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: FYI, that was NOT directed at you. It was directed at the fear mongering alarmists on the far right who constantly toss it out there like it should be concern number one. 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: Appreciate your measures response. One thing here, you latch on to 36weeks as if it’s the only example that was given. Forgetting about the other types of examples given. According to the KFF source Buster gave, 40% of abortions that happened at or after 20 weeks, patients said they just couldn’t make up their mind by then. 45% had a factor of patients claiming they just didn’t know they were pregnant (which in fact does happen, however I do not believe all 45% actually didn’t know yet it’s a convenient excuse) As stated above, it depends on what you view as a good reason. And just an fyi….the data presented does not include Illinois or CA or DC. I only chose 36 weeks because it was solidly in the 3rd trimester. Could’ve been 29 or 40. It was just an example. I personally don’t have a problem with a cutoff near 16 weeks. But that would be dependent on how well my aforementioned exceptions were protected. Problem is, the people writing these laws want the bans and as few exceptions as possible. And as stated before, I believe it is much worse to deny a woman proper healthcare than it is for an unborn fetus (or baby if you prefer) to be aborted in the 2nd trimester. We can’t continue to send women who are experiencing serious problems out of ERs to bleed out in their car until they are at death’s door or prevent abortions on victims of rape because they are at 9 weeks just to satisfy some of these ridiculous laws. 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 38 minutes ago, JJ Husker said: I personally don’t have a problem with a cutoff near 16 weeks. But that would be dependent on how well my aforementioned exceptions were protected. Problem is, the people writing these laws want the bans and as few exceptions as possible. And as stated before, I believe it is much worse to deny a woman proper healthcare than it is for an unborn fetus (or baby if you prefer) to be aborted in the 2nd trimester. We can’t continue to send women who are experiencing serious problems out of ERs to bleed out in their car until they are at death’s door or prevent abortions on victims of rape because they are at 9 weeks just to satisfy some of these ridiculous laws. Once again, I appreciate your respectful back and forth and really don’t disagree with much of what you posted. It also doesn’t conflict at all with my original assertion that a few people here are having a hissy fit over. Abortion is here to stay…no restrictions is ridiculous, 6 week maximum law is also ridiculous for an issue this divided. Currently it’s up to the State’s individually as it should up until the point Congress can pass a national law that is reasonable for the middle (not the extremes) 2 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Once again, I appreciate your respectful back and forth and really don’t disagree with much of what you posted. It also doesn’t conflict at all with my original assertion that a few people here are having a hissy fit over. Abortion is here to stay…no restrictions is ridiculous, 6 week maximum law is also ridiculous for an issue this divided. Currently it’s up to the State’s individually as it should up until the point Congress can pass a national law that is reasonable for the middle (not the extremes) Yeah, I don’t think it belongs with the states. Too much of it veers into personal rights. Kinda crazy to have one state banning everything at 6 weeks while the state next door bans virtually nothing. Roe v Wade seemed to be functioning pretty well until… 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 34 minutes ago, JJ Husker said: Yeah, I don’t think it belongs with the states. Too much of it veers into personal rights. Kinda crazy to have one state banning everything at 6 weeks while the state next door bans virtually nothing. Roe v Wade seemed to be functioning pretty well until… Yes…..until…….it was f#&%ed up. 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 36 minutes ago, JJ Husker said: Yeah, I don’t think it belongs with the states. Too much of it veers into personal rights. Kinda crazy to have one state banning everything at 6 weeks while the state next door bans virtually nothing. Roe v Wade seemed to be functioning pretty well until… The problem with it was it was unconstitutionally decided. You can’t just say one thing is fine being decided unconstitutionally and others not be. There has to be a standard for law and Congress has the ability to make one. Until then, it rightfully sits with each State to decide. 1 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 2 hours ago, Archy1221 said: The problem with it was it was unconstitutionally decided. You can’t just say one thing is fine being decided unconstitutionally and others not be. There has to be a standard for law and Congress has the ability to make one. Until then, it rightfully sits with each State to decide. Oh I know that. I’m just saying it is an issue that should be addressed at the federal level. And no, I have absolutely no illusions those clowns will ever arrive at an agreement. Only hope is a trifecta for dems. If it’s left up to Rs, welcome to Gilead. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts