What would be the last straw for you, as a Trump supporter?

[fskimospy]

Looks exactly the opposite to me. She said restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade, which necessarily precludes exactly such restrictions.

Anyone else? Is she the only one among the entire 2020 field you think would offer even tepid support for restricting the most egregious examples of late-term abortion?

And you think that lends support to your argument that the 2020 democrats are moderate?

Sure: I didn't demand that, nor did I describe it as moderate.

You literally did and I have already walked you through it, haha. The very post you wrote here is doing it!

To repeat, according to your arguments:

1) To be moderate to you Democrats must accept restrictions on abortion.
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion.
3) Ergo, Democrats must support overturning Roe v. Wade to be 'moderate'.

If you believe my logic here is somehow incorrect please highlight the section and explain how.

 

[Atreus21]

You literally did and I have already walked you through it, haha. The very post you wrote here is doing it!

To repeat, according to your arguments:

1) To be moderate to you Democrats must accept restrictions on abortion.
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion.
3) Ergo, Democrats must support overturning Roe v. Wade to be 'moderate'.

If you believe my logic here is somehow incorrect please highlight the section and explain how.

Answer the first part of my post, please, and we'll cover your point here afterward.

 

[fskimospy]

Answer the first part of my post, please, and we'll cover your point here afterward.

In short you've decided that people dodging a question means they don't support any restrictions on abortion, something that is not borne out in any of the legislating they have done over their careers. Actions speak louder than words.

Now that I've repeatedly answered your questions, please address the obvious logical conclusion from your position. For your convenience your argument is this:

1) To be moderate to you Democrats must accept restrictions on abortion.
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion.
3) Ergo, Democrats must support overturning Roe v. Wade to be 'moderate'.

 

[Atreus21]

In short you've decided that people dodging a question means they don't support any restrictions on abortion, something that is not borne out in any of the legislating they have done over their careers. Actions speak louder than words.

You're saying some of them have supported legislation aimed at restricting late-term abortion? Cite that please.

Furthermore, and I should've said this earlier, not all of them dodged. I'll see your Amy Klobuchar and raise you Michael Bennett. There is at least one among the 2020 field that is avowedly extremist, and has received no rebuke from his peers.

If they haven't, and instead you mean that they haven't supported legislation removing (non-existent) restrictions on late-term abortion, then again you're relying on an absence of evidence and citing it as evidence.

Now that I've repeatedly answered your questions, please address the obvious logical conclusion from your position. For your convenience your argument is this:

1) To be moderate to you Democrats must accept restrictions on abortion.
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits any restrictions on abortion.
3) Ergo, Democrats must support overturning Roe v. Wade to be 'moderate'.

Well that's not really my argument. I don't think you have to support overturning Roe to be moderate. I'd be satisfied just to hear you say that there should be meaningful restrictions on late-term abortion, such as the one given as an example in my question.

 

[dank69]

Would any 2020 democrat answer No to the following question:

"A mother is 38 weeks pregnant. The child is healthy, the mother is healthy. Doctors have every expectation of a healthy delivery. The mother wants to abort. Should that be allowed?"

Do you think any woman has ever gone through 38 weeks of pregnancy just to have a doctor terminate the fetus for no fucking reason?

 

[fskimospy]

You're saying some of them have supported legislation aimed at restricting late-term abortion? Cite that please.

If they haven't, and instead you mean that they haven't supported legislation removing (non-existent) restrictions on late-term abortion, then again you're relying on an absence of evidence and citing it as evidence.

Well that's not really my argument. I don't think you have to support overturning Roe to be moderate. I'd be satisfied just to hear you say that there should be meaningful restrictions on late-term abortion, such as the one given as an example in my question.

It LITERALLY IS your argument.

Point 1:

To admit that abortion at some or any stage is not to be allowed.

Point 2:

Klobuchar cited Roe v. Wade and Sestak essentially did the same thing; citing exemptions for the health of the mother. Roe v. Wade prohibits any restriction on abortion that doesn't make exceptions for the physical or mental health of the mother. The effect of this is to prohibit all restrictions on abortion, as health can mean just about anything.

Point 3:

Because you want them to say:
1) abortion at some or any stage is not to be allowed and
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits all restrictions on abortion then...
3) Roe v. Wade must be overturned.

A -> B -> C.

 

[Atreus21]

Do you think any woman has ever gone through 38 weeks of pregnancy just to have a doctor terminate the fetus for no fucking reason?

If she did, should it be allowed?

 

[UNCjigga]

You're saying some of them have supported legislation aimed at restricting late-term abortion? Cite that please.

Furthermore, and I should've said this earlier, not all of them dodged. I'll see your Amy Klobuchar and raise you Michael Bennett. There is at least one among the 2020 field that is avowedly extremist, and has received no rebuke from his peers.

If they haven't, and instead you mean that they haven't supported legislation removing (non-existent) restrictions on late-term abortion, then again you're relying on an absence of evidence and citing it as evidence.



Well that's not really my argument. I don't think you have to support overturning Roe to be moderate. I'd be satisfied just to hear you say that there should be meaningful restrictions on late-term abortion, such as the one given as an example in my question.

JFC, the fact that you’ve expended so many words and so much time on a non issue (~1% of all abortions) just demonstrates how dumb single issue voting is.

You can be morally opposed to all abortion. That is your right. In fact, I happen to believe that is the correct stance to take—publicly object to abortion. You can support lawmakers on both sides who want to see the total # of abortions diminish year over year *where it counts*—preventing teen pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies through education and other initiatives.

The one thing you should never, ever do is get between a woman and her doctor making a medical decision on whether a pregnancy should continue or not. Doctors are bound to the Hippocratic oath and that should be enough to discourage abortions of “convenience”. Can anyone provide a single example of a woman terminating a perfectly healthy baby with zero complications in pregnancy after 24 weeks? Anyone?

 

[ch33zw1z]

If she did, should it be allowed?

Oh here come the "what ifs". What do the numbers say again? How many people wait until then to have an abortion?

 

[Atreus21]

It LITERALLY IS your argument.

Point 1:



Point 2:



Point 3:

Because you want them to say:
1) abortion at some or any stage is not to be allowed and
2) Roe v. Wade prohibits all restrictions on abortion then...
3) Roe v. Wade must be overturned.

A -> B -> C.

By citing the necessity of keeping restrictions confined to Roe v. Wade, they indicate that they're not in favor any real restrictions.

The act of citing Roe v. Wade undermines any claim in favor of restrictions. That was my point.

If, on the other hand, they said "I am in favor of restricting abortions past 30 weeks except to save the life of the mother", that would signal moderation to me.

 

[fskimospy]

By citing the necessity of keeping restrictions confined to Roe v. Wade, they indicate that they're not in favor any real restrictions.

The act of citing Roe v. Wade undermines any claim in favor of restrictions. That was my point.

If, on the other hand, they said "I am in favor of restricting abortions past 30 weeks except to save the life of the mother", that would signal moderation to me.

So to be clear you think they would be 'moderates' on abortion by saying they support a restriction you claim can never be enforced?

 

[ch33zw1z]

JFC, the fact that you’ve expended so many words and so much time on a non issue (~1% of all abortions) just demonstrates how dumb single issue voting is.

You can be morally opposed to all abortion. That is your right. In fact, I happen to believe that is the correct stance to take—publicly object to abortion. You can support lawmakers on both sides who want to see the total # of abortions diminish year over year *where it counts*—preventing teen pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies through education and other initiatives.

The one thing you should never, ever do is get between a woman and her doctor making a medical decision on whether a pregnancy should continue or not. Doctors are bound to the Hippocratic oath and that should be enough to discourage abortions of “convenience”. Can anyone provide a single example of a woman terminating a perfectly healthy baby with zero complications in pregnancy after 24 weeks? Anyone?

But how will he cast judgement on uppity women who dare challenge his ideal government, small enough to fit inside a vagina

 

[Commodus]

Never mind the late-term abortion stuff -- here's a couple of recent examples showing why you should support the Democrats even if you're against abortion.

To start, the Trump administration illegally tied teen pregnancy programs to abstinence-only initiatives that aren't supported by facts. If you want teens to have responsible sex education so they don't have to even consider abortion in the first place, you must vote Trump out.

Then there's the Virginia Senate, where Democrats have introduced a bill that would let teens obtain birth control and vaccines without parental consent. As pointed out, Colorado saw significant decreases in teen pregnancies and abortions when it implemented similar policies. Republicans? Of course they oppose this. You won't get broader implementations of this unless you vote Democrat.

If it weren't so tragic, I'd laugh at how the modern Republican mindset on abortion works: let's implement regressive policies that contribute to the problem of unwanted pregnancies, but then make it difficult to obtain abortions when those unwanted pregnancies go up. It's like poking a hole in a dam and then preventing people downriver from buying sandbags and rescue boats.

 

[dank69]

If she did, should it be allowed?

As a non-doctor that doesn't know anything about anything, it seems to me that extracting the fetus alive would be no more invasive than killing it before extracting it, and as such, no it should not be allowed. I'm also pretty sure it is not allowed anywhere in the US, and none of the candidates have expressed any desire to make it legal.

 

[UNCjigga]

But how will he cast judgement on uppity women who dare challenge his ideal government, small enough to fit inside a vagina

“Government should be small enough to be [aborted after 24 weeks and] drowned in a bathtub” ~ Grover Norquist

 

[Atreus21]

JFC, the fact that you’ve expended so many words and so much time on a non issue (~1% of all abortions) just demonstrates how dumb single issue voting is.

Yes, less than 1% of all abortions, to the tune of 12,000 a year by Guttmacher's own study.

You can be morally opposed to all abortion. That is your right. In fact, I happen to believe that is the correct stance to take—publicly object to abortion. You can support lawmakers on both sides who want to see the total # of abortions diminish year over year *where it counts*—preventing teen pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies through education and other initiatives.

The one thing you should never, ever do is get between a woman and her doctor making a medical decision on whether a pregnancy should continue or not. Doctors are bound to the Hippocratic oath and that should be enough to discourage abortions of “convenience”. Can anyone provide a single example of a woman terminating a perfectly healthy baby with zero complications in pregnancy after 24 weeks? Anyone?

I can provide exactly that, or pretty close to it.

But the more important question is, if a woman in good health wanted to abort her healthy child at 24 weeks or beyond, should that be allowed?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Never mind the late-term abortion stuff -- here's a couple of recent examples showing why you should support the Democrats even if you're against abortion.

To start, the Trump administration illegally tied teen pregnancy programs to abstinence-only initiatives that aren't supported by facts. If you want teens to have responsible sex education so they don't have to even consider abortion in the first place, you must vote Trump out.

Then there's the Virginia Senate, where Democrats have introduced a bill that would let teens obtain birth control and vaccines without parental consent. As pointed out, Colorado saw significant decreases in teen pregnancies and abortions when it implemented similar policies. Republicans? Of course they oppose this. You won't get broader implementations of this unless you vote Democrat.

If it weren't so tragic, I'd laugh at how the modern Republican mindset on abortion works: let's implement regressive policies that contribute to the problem of unwanted pregnancies, but then make it difficult to obtain abortions when those unwanted pregnancies go up. It's like poking a hole in a dam and then preventing people downriver from buying sandbags and rescue boats.

This.

 

[Atreus21]

So to be clear you think they would be 'moderates' on abortion by saying they support a restriction you claim can never be enforced?

Of course, just like I'm in favor of state restrictions on abortion, even though they run afoul of Roe.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course, just like I'm in favor of state restrictions on abortion, even though they run afoul of Roe.

lol, so you have decided that your vote hinges on saying they support something that according to you can't happen.

I don't even know what to say to that because that's so, so depressingly dumb.

 

[Atreus21]

lol, so you have decided that your vote hinges on saying they support something that according to you can't happen.

I don't even know what to say to that because that's so, so depressingly dumb.

I don't think so. I'm sure many people similarly opposed segregation while Plessy was still in effect.

 

[UNCjigga]

Yes, less than 1% of all abortions, to the tune of 12,000 a year by Guttmacher's own study.



I can provide exactly that, or pretty close to it.

But the more important question is, if a woman in good health wanted to abort her healthy child at 24 weeks or beyond, should that be allowed?

My contention is that you'll be more effective at reducing those 13,000 late-term abortions by:

a) Increasing access to general healthcare services (which would promote earlier detection of pregancy for poorer women)
b) Increasing access to contraceptives & morning-after pills, especially amongst poorer women and women aged 16-24
c) Increasing access to family planning services, so that abortion can be obtained earlier in pregnancy.

Now why have "anti- late-term abortion" conservatives voted to restrict all 3 options?

 

[UNCjigga]

My contention is that you'll be more effective at reducing those 13,000 late-term abortions by:

a) Increasing access to general healthcare services (which would promote earlier detection of pregancy for poorer women)
b) Increasing access to contraceptives & morning-after pills, especially amongst poorer women and women aged 16-24
c) Increasing access to family planning services, so that abortion can be obtained earlier in pregnancy.
d) EDIT: forgot Increasing breadth and depth of evidence-based sex education for teenagers in public schools.

Now why have "anti- late-term abortion" conservatives voted to restrict all 4 options?

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think so. I'm sure many people similarly opposed segregation while Plessy was still in effect.

Uhmm, Plessy v. Ferguson didn't prevent places from outlawing segregation.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I hate stepping into abortion topics.
isnt that 1% figure based mostly upon fetuses that have been damaged in the womb and most would not survive outside of the womb?
like Mom is in a horrible car accident the baby has taken an enormous impact and is too broken to survive.

 

[ch33zw1z]

And this is really where the proof is in the pudding. Instead of legislating their feels, conservatives could stop it before it starts. Abstinence only doesn't work, we know that. Shaming doesn't work, we know that. Sexual education is why our society sees less and less abortions yearly

My contention is that you'll be more effective at reducing those 13,000 late-term abortions by:

a) Increasing access to general healthcare services (which would promote earlier detection of pregancy for poorer women)
b) Increasing access to contraceptives & morning-after pills, especially amongst poorer women and women aged 16-24
c) Increasing access to family planning services, so that abortion can be obtained earlier in pregnancy.

Now why have "anti- late-term abortion" conservatives voted to restrict all 3 options?