Reply With Quote
And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.
LOL and you still vote for the GOP taliban despite your thoughts and prayers here.
And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.
ROFL spoken like a true Republican blaming Democrats for his party being fascist jeebo loons.
Both sides guy making an appearance.
What the is wrong with that, ankle biting asshole? This hardheaded blue versus red will be the death of this country.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 04-23-2023 at 06:13 PM.
In the past the parties might have different agendas and have disagreements but in the end they managed to work out compromises for the best if the country. This no compromise from both sides is ridiculous.
Your side wants to overthrow democracy. What's the ing compromise?
Get off this "your side" .
For Repugs, negotiation, compromise, respect for opponents is for eunuchs, because opponents are never right, never even legit,
only Repugs are legit and always right.
Been the Repug position since 1992 when Noot Gingrich set Congress on fire.
Fascist Repugs are wannabe Machos, "My Way, or You Down the Highway"
Biden's stand, out macho 'em, must be NOTHING but clean raising of debt limit, Never Give An Inch,
because Repugs lifted the debt a few times under Trash and shrub with no objection from Repugs.
Debt limit must be terminated.
No more debt limit extortion of the Dems by the Repug thugs.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-23-2023 at 07:46 PM.
You still vote for your side after they tried to overthrow democracy
Which states have the elective abortion law you describe?
To the religious right, there is no compromise to abortion. Never will be. It's not both sides on this issue, but nice try, ass hurt head.
I agree (except for the asshurt head part, that's you, loser cuck) and that sucks. East Texas bible thumpers have really ed up Texas.
The commie stronghold of Alaska.
This is such a stupid red herring I'm surprised you've fallen for it. Do you honestly think there are mothers out there who, at 39 weeks, are like, "Nah it, I don't want this baby abort it."
Sometimes a birth is not viable, or serious physical and/or mental deformities require very tough decisions for the parents in consultation with their doctor. You want Ken Paxton stepping in and overriding those hard decisions? that.
He asked for the states that allow it with no restrictions. This has come up time and time again at he federal level and Democrats have always supported no limits at all. Many states do a more reasonable no abortions after x time with those exceptions of mothers life, etc.
The total number for Colorado late term abortions is a bit over 200 a year. All reasons.
I guess I'm just more of a small government guy but I don't want Ken Paxton defining appropriate restrictions or serving as an unnecessary permission firewall for mothers and doctors who have to make these decisions.
looks like there's a coordinated push on the "late term abortion" on demand narrative.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham used to say that abortion is a state's rights issue. That is, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year—and Graham started pushing for a federal ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But when CNN asked him about whether abortion is a federal issue on Sunday, he lost it.https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzea/lindsey-graham-abortion-rant“What the Democratic Party proposes on abortion is barbaric,” Graham told CNN’s Dana Bash when he appeared on the program State of the Union, just days after the Supreme Court ruled to keep a safe and effective abortion pill on the market. “Abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded—I think is barbaric. I welcome this debate. I think the Republican Party will be in good standing to oppose late-term abortion, like most of the civilized world.”
here's the scheme under Roe v Wade. characterizing that as legalization of abortion on demand, at any time, is dishonest.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate OR outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
whinehole, you didn't understand what the OR meant?
Personally, I wish they had never overturned Roe V Wade.
Me too.
I totally understand the OR and wish Roe were still the law. AFAIK, there are literally zero national Democrats and people in this forum supporting a legal scheme that's more permissive than Roe.
The narrative that third trimester abortions are mostly undertaken willy nilly by ty, irresponsible women, rather than being appropriate treatment for legit medical emergencies or nonviable fetuses, is utter bull .
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-24-2023 at 11:48 AM.
The court should stay out of anyone's right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
Speaking as someone who has helped deliver many babies and been an active part of several c-sections as part of his profession this is blatantly false. If a fetus is delivered prior to expected delivery date during the 3rd trimester then labor was induced or an emergency c-section was performed because of a potentially lethal risk to mother, a fatal defect in the fetus, or both.
Just a few emergencies requiring c-section aka abortion:
-Sometimes the umbilical cord can start to strangulate a fetus requiring an emergent c-section or immediate labor induction.
-Sometimes the placenta can detach from the uterine wall causing massive hemorrhaging again requiring an emergent c-section aka abortion.
-Sometimes an infection can spiral out of control.
-Sometimes a fatal physical flaw is discovered late in the fetus
A c-section is the medical procedure that terminates pregnancy in the 3rd trimester. An abortion terminates pregnancy. A c-section is an abortion. There are countless ways in which a pregnancy can go catastrophically wrong resulting in the need for rapid abortion or loss of life will happen.
Sometimes a baby is delivered as a result of the c-section, sometimes a fetus dies during the actual process and sometimes a nonviable fetus is removed. To make abortion (aka 3rd trimester c-sections) illegal is to place the mother's and potential child's lives at risk.
During my college days there was a group of "pro-life" conservatives that traveled around harassing students with horrific pictures of supposed "3rd trimester abortions." In actuality, these pictures were the results of life-saving c-sections that had to be performed.
Did the above emergencies matter to the photographer or the religious zealots that used them as propaganda? No, the pictures were taken illegally, (violating patient privacy) and mislabeled as "3rd trimester elective abortions." That's a truly vile act performed by the zealots because these aren't elective, they're emergent. The women that undergo these procedures have now been carrying their prospective child for many months now and that is now all lost. It's an extremely traumatic experience for everyone involved, but of course especially the mother, and requires a lengthy healing process. In most cases they never even had a choice. To prolong that loss by prohibiting abortion is an action of cruelty fueled by ignorance and zealotry.
Let's think critically for a moment, how many women do you really think would willingly progress through the profound physiological changes associated with a pregnancy and the attachment to her prospective child all the way towards a nebulous, but certain, delivery date only to flippantly change her mind as the process is finally, finally reaching conclusion?
Does that really sound plausible to you?
Do you really think that to be a frequent occurrence?
Do you really think an ob-gyn would unquestioningly accept her profound change in desired outcome without a therapist being on hand to help sort through whatever she may be feeling at the time?
Nobody is "killing babies in the 3rd trimester," let alone being allowed to vote on the issue. It's highly charged emotional rhetoric used to dupe people that for whatever reason can't see through the dishonesty. To repeat their message is to promote harmful behavior.
Please listen to medical professionals and not politicians when dealing with medical problems. Be it abortion, covid, vaccination, whatever. There can be no compromise with irrational, dishonest behavior.
To believe otherwise, is dangerously naive.
Probably shouldn't have voted for Cruz and Cornyn then
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions