Good news in Michigan: Abortion amendment must appear on ballot

[Amused]

There is no inalienable right to kill a viable human being. None.

I have no objections to a woman needing to get an abortion prior to viability. And after viability in a medical emergency defined by a medical doctor.

As for rape and incest and an abortion it should be done before the fetus is viable. Easy take a Plan B pill after the rape or incest as a precaution and no worries.

So, as I said, the limitations you seek are ALREADY in place, and in practice. Less than 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester and virtually ALL of those are medical necessity

Virtually ALL states ban 3rd trimester abortions that are not medically necessary. Some allow exceptions for rape, incest and abuse (these women can, at times, be unable to get to a doctor in time because of abuse).

My issue on rights is body autonomy in the first 2 trimesters.

For all further discussion, the fetus is NOT realistically viable as we speak of rights.

So, I'll ask again, must a right be specifically enumerated in the Bill of Right to be a valid right?

Do you believe a citizen has the inherent right to body autonomy and should NOT be subject to the tyranny of the majority?

 

[nickqt]

There is no inalienable right to kill a viable human being. None.

I have no objections to a woman needing to get an abortion prior to viability. And after viability in a medical emergency defined by a medical doctor.

As for rape and incest and an abortion it should be done before the fetus is viable. Easy take a Plan B pill after the rape or incest as a precaution and no worries.

Plan B isn't a miracle pill. If the egg has already been ovulated then it is possible for the woman to still get pregnant from incest or rape.

Until week 23+, a woman can do whatever she wants with her body, because it's her body, not gub'mints.

After week 23+, the gub'mint imposing control over a woman's body has to pay for every cost that woman has remotely related to carrying a fetus against her will, up to and including adoption, medical bills, loss-of-income, and life-long therapy. Otherwise the gub'mint should mind it's own business.

 

[pcgeek11]

So, as I said, the limitations you seek are ALREADY in place, and in practice. Less than 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester and virtually ALL of those are medical necessity

Virtually ALL states ban 3rd trimester abortions that are not medically necessary. Some allow exceptions for rape, incest and abuse (these women can, at times, be unable to get to a doctor in time because of abuse).

My issue on rights is body autonomy in the first 2 trimesters.

For all further discussion, the fetus is NOT realistically viable as we speak of rights.

So, I'll ask again, must a right be specifically enumerated in the Bill of Right to be a valid right?

Do you believe a citizen has the inherent right to body autonomy and should NOT be subject to the tyranny of the majority?

1. ) My issue on rights is body autonomy in the first 2 trimesters.

I have agreed with this already a woman is fully in charge up until a fetus becomes viable at 24 weeks.

2. ) For all further discussion, the fetus is NOT realistically viable as we speak of rights.

At 24 weeks the fetus is considered viable from articles I have read.

3. ) So, I'll ask again, must a right be specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be a valid right?

No, it doesn't. But in this case the womans rights to full autonomy end when the fetus become viable.

4. ) Do you believe a citizen has the inherent right to body autonomy and should NOT be subject to the tyranny of the majority?

Yes, up to the limit I stated in #3 above: The womans rights to full autonomy end when the fetus become viable.

 

[pcgeek11]

Plan B isn't a miracle pill. If the egg has already been ovulated then it is possible for the woman to still get pregnant from incest or rape.

~snip~ We agree on up to 23 weeks.

After week 23+, the gub'mint imposing control over a woman's body has to pay for every cost that woman has remotely related to carrying a fetus against her will, up to and including adoption, medical bills, loss-of-income, and life-long therapy. Otherwise the gub'mint should mind it's own business.

Nobody said it was a miracle pill. After the 23rd week she should be able to get an abortion for rape or incest.

The point of the Government paying for anything you stated is pure out bull shit. LOL

 

[Amused]

1. ) My issue on rights is body autonomy in the first 2 trimesters.

I have agreed with this already a woman is fully in charge up until a fetus becomes viable at 24 weeks.

2. ) For all further discussion, the fetus is NOT realistically viable as we speak of rights.

At 24 weeks the fetus is considered viable from articles I have read.

3. ) So, I'll ask again, must a right be specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be a valid right?

No, it doesn't. But in this case the womans rights to full autonomy end when the fetus become viable.

4. ) Do you believe a citizen has the inherent right to body autonomy and should NOT be subject to the tyranny of the majority?

Yes, up to the limit I stated in #3 above: The womans rights to full autonomy end when the fetus become viable.

Then what is the argument? We are all in agreement:
That a 15 week ban (as proposed by Graham) IS tyranny.
That a vote to ban ALL abortion (or place ANY limitations in the first two trimesters) IS tyranny of the majority over the inalienable rights of the individual.
That banning ANY abortion that is medically necessary (this includes birth defects AND health AND life of the mother) during ANY trimester is an abuse of human rights and tyranny.
That pre-viability abortion IS a constitutional right (privacy) in the first 2 trimesters.

So now all we have to do is get you do accept on allowing states to decide the constitutional rights of citizens is unconstitutional.

Argument settled.

 

[nickqt]

Nobody said it was a miracle pill. After the 23rd week she should be able to get an abortion for rape or incest.

The point of the Government paying for anything you stated is pure out bull shit. LOL

If you actually give any shits at all, whatsoever, about the "life of the fetus", than it should be no big deal that money gets spent to keep the fetus alive and compensate the woman. That you're balking and actually laughing about it pretty much shows that you don't actually give a shit about the "life of the fetus" and instead only care about controlling a woman's body and limiting what she can and cannot do with it.

Otherwise, you'd just hand wave whatever chump change is involved in paying for this woman to do something she doesn't want to do, to protect the super sanctity of life or whatever you and your right-wing authoritarian allies pretend to care about.

So, please, continue laughing to prove how serious you are about "protecting life".

Second, there is plenty of Constitutional precedent for the government needing to pay an individual when the government decides it is going to overrule an individual's right for some other "public good".

The 5th Amendment "Takings Clause", applied to states via the 14th Amendment, already covers paying an individual for taking private property. While a uterus and internal organs might not be considered "personal property", that only matters to jurists who are attempting to paint over 21st century rights with 18th century linguistics, which I'm sure you're a fan of as a right-wing authoritarian.

If you give one tiny fuck about the life of a fetus, than instead of laughing about compensating women for taking away their rights, you should be in favor of compensating them for their time and their current/future health in order to protect that life you say you care about.

That you laugh about money being one way to compensate a woman's loss of bodily autonomy shows what your true goals actually are, which is to give government a right to control a woman and limit her choices without being compensated for it.

 

[HomerJS]

There is no inalienable right to kill a viable human being. None.

I have no objections to a woman needing to get an abortion prior to viability. And after viability in a medical emergency defined by a medical doctor.

As for rape and incest and an abortion it should be done before the fetus is viable. Easy take a Plan B pill after the rape or incest as a precaution and no worries.

Until you crazy right winger push for personhood again like during Obamas term defining fertilized eggs as people and redefining birth control as abortifacients

Remember personhood?

 

[pcgeek11]

Then what is the argument? We are all in agreement:
That a 15 week ban (as proposed by Graham) IS tyranny.
That a vote to ban ALL abortion (or place ANY limitations in the first two trimesters) IS tyranny of the majority over the inalienable rights of the individual.
That banning ANY abortion that is medically necessary (this includes birth defects AND health AND life of the mother) during ANY trimester is an abuse of human rights and tyranny.
That pre-viability abortion IS a constitutional right (privacy) in the first 2 trimesters.

So now all we have to do is get you do accept on allowing states to decide the constitutional rights of citizens is unconstitutional.

Argument settled.

There never was an argument. I stated my opinion on what the law should be ( I was mistaken about what week was viability and corrected myself after it was pointed out). Then everybody wanted to argue about it, including you.

I don't know what you mean by this:

"So now all we have to do is get you do accept on allowing states to decide the constitutional rights of citizens is unconstitutional."

 

[pcgeek11]

Until you crazy right winger push for personhood again like during Obamas term defining fertilized eggs as people and redefining birth control as abortifacients

Remember personhood?

That doesn't apply to me, but thanks for your input.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Pcgeek is the type of person that forced my ex-girlfriend to give birth to a child that had zero chance of survival. We found around 24 weeks that there was a growth on her tailbone by the time it was determined there was no chance of survival my ex was about 30 weeks along. We were denied having the pregnancy terminated unless we traveled to Kansas to see Dr. Tiller.

We suffered great emotional and mental anguish because of the pro-life movement, having a child you wanted so badly die in your arms is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. So excuse me if I say fuck you to you and your opinion there snowflake, also fuck you to anyone else that thinks like pcgeek.

 

[sandorski]

The system is not already in place as each state now has to address this issue since the Supreme Court Ruling.

I disagree that No One is seeking late term abortions. Even one viable killing is too many.

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

View attachment 67548

The woman's autonomy rights end when the baby becomes viable. Before that she should be allowed to do as she wants concerning abortion.

A Baby requires Birth.

 

[iRONic]

Damn, Darth 🥺. Condolences to all.

 

[HomerJS]

That doesn't apply to me, but thanks for your input.

For people who eschew tradition medicine for their kids are you going to force them if their kids gets a common illness but could be fatal if untreated?

 

[pcgeek11]

Pcgeek is the type of person that forced my ex-girlfriend to give birth to a child that had zero chance of survival. We found around 24 weeks that there was a growth on her tailbone by the time it was determined there was no chance of survival my ex was about 30 weeks along. We were denied having the pregnancy terminated unless we traveled to Kansas to see Dr. Tiller.

We suffered great emotional and mental anguish because of the pro-life movement, having a child you wanted so badly die in your arms is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. So excuse me if I say fuck you to you and your opinion there snowflake, also fuck you to anyone else that thinks like pcgeek.

I am deeply sorry about your loss.

However do not see how I am the type of person that would cause issues as you have described. I have openly stated many times that an abortion should be allowed for medical reasons beyond 24 weeks.

You and many other obviously have not read the words I wrote in this very thread. You just want an enemy and someone to blame.

Again I'm sorry for both of you for your loss.

 

[HomerJS]

I am deeply sorry about your loss.

However do not see how I am the type of person that would cause issues as you have described. I have openly stated many times that an abortion should be allowed for medical reasons beyond 24 weeks.

You and many other obviously have not read the words I wrote in this very thread. You just want an enemy and someone to blame.

Again I'm sorry for both of you for your loss.

Right now Republicans legislators and prosecutors determine what is medically necessary not doctors. This is the environment you people created. Doctors are afraid to take action because the state will sue them out of practice.

 

[brycejones]

I am deeply sorry about your loss.

However do not see how I am the type of person that would cause issues as you have described. I have openly stated many times that an abortion should be allowed for medical reasons beyond 24 weeks.

You and many other obviously have not read the words I wrote in this very thread. You just want an enemy and someone to blame.

Again I'm sorry for both of you for your loss.

The problem is all too frequently the wording in those laws is so vague that the legal advice doctors receive is basically don't do it. We really don't need these laws in the first place, the data says they do very little to block elective abortions since those are very very very rare already after 24 weeks. What they do is create an environment of uncertainty that puts road blocks in the way of women receiving the care they need.

TLDR:

Trust woman and their doctors to make the best and most informed decisions.

 

[JD50]

I am deeply sorry about your loss.

However do not see how I am the type of person that would cause issues as you have described. I have openly stated many times that an abortion should be allowed for medical reasons beyond 24 weeks.

You and many other obviously have not read the words I wrote in this very thread. You just want an enemy and someone to blame.

Again I'm sorry for both of you for your loss.

It doesn't matter what you "openly state", it matters what you vote for, and this is what you voted for. Maybe try taking some personal responsibility for your actions.

 

[pcgeek11]

For people who eschew tradition medicine for their kids are you going to force them if their kids gets a common illness but could be fatal if untreated?

It depends on a lot of factors. In general if you have a child that has an illness that is diagnosed by a doctor and they are informed that without treatment that the child may die. Then if they abstain or do nothing then the child dies at a minimum they should be charged with negligent homicide.

 

[pcgeek11]

Right now Republicans legislators and prosecutors determine what is medically necessary not doctors. This is the environment you people created. Doctors are afraid to take action because the state will sue them out of practice.

I am not a You People. Doctors should have the final word on what is required not a lawmaker. If this was written into law the issue would be solved.

 

[brycejones]

I am not a You People. Doctors should have the final word on what is required not a lawmaker. If this was written into law the issue would be solved.

So stop voting for people who do the opposite.

 

[pcgeek11]

You people just want a target to shoot at. I guess I'm wrong for what I think and believe. I am the resident child killer and the bane of women that want or needs an abortion after 24 weeks. (regardless of me believing the opposite).

It doesn't matter on this silly forum anyway. It's just an echo chamber.

Meh.

 

[pcgeek11]

So stop voting for people who do the opposite.

I'm not voting for someone that is for late term abortions up until the due date that is for damn sure.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not voting for someone that is for late term abortions up until the due date that is for damn sure.

Man those contortions must hurt. And you see exactly the kind of person who created the situation darthkyle had to deal with you. You claim to care and want things to be different but vote people who run on causing pain to others.

 

[pcgeek11]

Man those contortions must hurt. And you see exactly the kind of person who created the situation darthkyle had to deal with you. You claim to care and want things to be different but vote people who run on causing pain to others.

I didn't vote for any Democrats.

 

[HomerJS]

I am not a You People. Doctors should have the final word on what is required not a lawmaker. If this was written into law the issue would be solved.

But it's not. You people got what you wanted. Doctors and women being afraid to get medical treatment