Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15005112
:lol:

They said they only do them if there is danger to the mother. You don't pay attention much, do you? You are trying to twist it to say what you want. Fucking pathetic, as usual. :knife:

blackjack21 wrote:That's why outlawing them is also a non-issue.
Why remove a right, just because it doesn't happen often? Your own logic is astoundingly stupid.
#15005114
Myself I think all of you and anyone wanting a abortion need to go to a abortion and watch one.
There are 2 basic types one they suck the child out with a hose its very graphic and disgusting.
The other one is the hook method where the child is hooked like a fish and often placed in a stainless try or bucket to die a horrable painful discusting death.
I have not looked for a long time but id bet the vids could still be found online. Look at them if you think abortions used for birth control are a good thing.
Most of those in favor wont do it id bet . they dont want to see it. They are afraid it might touch thier heart .
Or have to judge themself for what they are doing.
#15005116
Godstud wrote:They said they only do them if there is danger to the mother. You don't pay attention much, do you?

The governor of Virginia said he would gladly kill a baby after it was born after consultation with the mother. New York seems to want to do this too.

Godstud wrote:Why remove a right, just because it doesn't happen often?

Don't you mean "rite" as in a ritual human sacrifice? Isn't that what we're stopping? Why can't satanists just come out and be who they are? Why all the bullshit? We aren't required to believe someone's actions are a-okay just because they have MD after their name.
#15005119
Ter wrote:@snapdragon
You have nicely side-stepped the issue of the late-term abortions.
I would be interested to hear your opinion on that.


I'm against any restrictions on abortion at any time.
Late term abortions are a matter between the woman concerned and her doctor.


If you take the position that the woman by herself can take the decision to abort, then she forgoes the right to ask for child support in case she intends to keep the baby. You can't have it both ways.



Women can't claim child support on behalf of foetuses.

Also:

Although I am a male, I have the right to vote people in office who would legislate this issue the way I see it. That is exactly what the people of Alabama have done.



So you support mob rule. Nice.
#15005123
snapdragon wrote:So you support mob rule. Nice.

No, it is called democracy.
The people vote their representatives in office, and their Governor.
That is not a mob.
Your ideas are the majority in places like New York and California.
In many other places, people have higher moral values.
#15005126
The trouble with these reactionary and combative efforts to ban abortion and overturn Roe vs Wade through these draconian laws is that they could easily inspire the sae from the other side.

There is nothing stopping progressives from also making new laws and challenging old ones by putting forth equally extreme proposals.

I am wondering what the Republicans are actually trying to do here.
#15005130
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am wondering what the Republicans are actually trying to do here.


Any means necessary is their approach now, as previous approaches have not worked. Further, the supreme court not has folks that might be in their side. Now is the time for them to strike so to speak.

This could set us back decades. :hmm:
#15005132
Rancid wrote:Any means necessary is their approach now, as previous approaches have not worked. Further, the supreme court not has folks that might be in their side. Now is the time for them to strike so to speak.

This could set us back decades. :hmm:


Yes, and then twenty years from now, or whenever the SCOTUS has more progressives than conservatives, the pro-choice side can repeat this tactic.

And then the US could be left with a law (or more correctly, a lack of law) like Canada’s.
#15005174
Canada will be turning more to medical abortions as the cost of drugs can/is/has been negotiated. These abortions require a prescription but can be taken at home.

Doctors estimate 1/3 of all pregnancies self/terminate in the first trimester. So is Alabama's brain boxes going after God?
#15005176
Another aspect: Just like drug laws don't stop drug use, abortion laws don't stop abortion. Abortion rates where abortion is illegal is often higher than in countries where it ain't. The abortion rate in Mexico, for instance, is higher than in the U.S. Also, the abortion rate in the U.S. before Roe v Wade was about the same as after. Kinda hard to say because illegal activity is hard to track.

This Alabama law is just political theatre. I has no effect. Abortion will continue to be legal in Alabama. :D
#15005179
Stormsmith wrote:Canada will be turning more to medical abortions as the cost of drugs can/is/has been negotiated. These abortions require a prescription but can be taken at home.

Doctors estimate 1/3 of all pregnancies self/terminate in the first trimester. So is Alabama's brain boxes going after God?


It's going to own when every miscarriage in a chud state is investigated as potential murder. Because the point of these laws isn't to save lives, something the GOP has never stood for, but to punish women as much as possible.
#15005184
I agree the GOP is fond of giving women a tough time. There's a few that must give President Trump serious indigestion though, if his reaction to Speaker Pelosi is taken into account. Women like Stacey Abrams and freshman Rep. Katie Porter (v Jamie Dimon)
#15005222
Godstud wrote::roll: Yeah, crazy Canada where abortions don't mean killing babies, and where the fears of late-term abortionists is just a myth. Where women have a right to choose what they do with their bodies.

When a women carrying a unborn child in her womb is murdered, it is prosecuted as two counts of murder. When a women carrying an unborn child is attacked killing the unborn child. it is prosecuted as an assault on the woman and murder of the child.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vi ... olence_Act

It seems inconsistent to me to not prosecute the mother and the doctor when the "unborn child" has been contracted out to be killed.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 22

I thought the Dutch were the same as Jews.

Global warming denialists often sound like broken[…]

You accuse us Baby Boomers of being brainwashed […]

AI cannot read tweets in context as it can only i[…]