Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 70 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15237073
Drlee wrote:Most of what you said is untrue. But we can let the medicine go for a moment.


As far as I can tell, the claim that late term abortions can be hard to access in geographically large countries is true. This is based solely in travel distance to a facility with the proper equipment and staff.

I and the majority of Americans disagree with your assessment. We believe that late term abortions are ghastly and should be illegal. So, because we are a democracy, we constructed our laws to reflect the moral compass of our people. If you wish to kill viable babies, then the US would not be a good fit for you.


This is a bit of an argument from popularity. If the majority wanted to make pure white people into slaves, would that be fine, simply because a majority want it?

According to you, sure. As long as the majority agrees that a certain minority should not have some rights, then this is fine.

For the record though. Late term abortions in Canada are hard to get because there are very few doctors who will perform one. And they are not hard. Any OB GYN could do one in his/her sleep. They just wont.


I doubt this.

But Canada, other than serving as an example of a country with less abortions and more abortion rights, is off topic.

Do you want to discuss the misinformation that Alito wrote on page 61 of the leaked draft?
#15237080
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, the claim that late term abortions can be hard to access in geographically large countries is true. This is based solely in travel distance to a facility with the proper equipment and staff.



This is a bit of an argument from popularity. If the majority wanted to make pure white people into slaves, would that be fine, simply because a majority want it?

According to you, sure. As long as the majority agrees that a certain minority should not have some rights, then this is fine.



I doubt this.

But Canada, other than serving as an example of a country with less abortions and more abortion rights, is off topic.

Do you want to discuss the misinformation that Alito wrote on page 61 of the leaked draft?

The history of slavery in the Muslim world began with institutions inherited from pre-Islamic Arabia;[1] and the practice of keeping slaves subsequently developed in radically different ways, depending on social-political factors such as the Arab slave trade. Any non-Muslim could be enslaved.
Two rough estimates by scholars of the numbers of just one group - black slaves held over twelve centuries in the Muslim world - are 11.5 million[6] and 14 million,[7][8] while other estimates indicate a number between 12 and 15 million African slaves prior to the 20th century.[9]In theory, slavery in Islamic law does not have a racial or color basis, although this has not always been the case in practice.The Ottoman slave trade exploited the human resources of eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus; the Barbary Coast slave traders raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[19] Slavery in Iran was abolished in 1929.
However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented at present in the predominantly Islamic countries of the Sahel,[21][22] and is also practiced by ISIS and Boko Haram. It is also practiced in countries like Libya and Mauritania - despite being outlawed.

Bernard Lewis writes: "In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire." He notes that the Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to the massive importation of slaves from the outside.[2] According to Patrick Manning, Islam by recognizing and codifying slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse.[28]

A system of plantation labor, much like that which would emerge in the Americas, developed early on, but with such dire consequences that subsequent engagements were relatively rare and reduced.[3] Slaves in Islam were mainly directed at the service sector – concubines and cooks, porters and soldiers – with slavery itself primarily a form of consumption rather than a factor of production.[3] The most telling evidence for this is found in the gender ratio; among slaves traded in Islamic empire across the centuries, there were roughly two females to every male. Outside of explicit sexual slavery, most female slaves had domestic occupations. Often, this also included sexual relations with their masters - a lawful motive for their purchase and the most common one.[42][5]Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice against black Africans, Bernard Lewis argues that ethnocentric prejudice later developed among Arabs, for a variety of reasons:[44] their extensive conquests and slave trade; the influence of Aristotelian ideas regarding slavery, which some Muslim philosophers directed towards Zanj (Bantu[45]) and Turkic peoples;[46] and the influence of religious ideas regarding divisions among humankind.

Choosing slaves to undergo the grooming process was highly selective in the Moroccan empire. There are many attributes and skills slaves can possess to win the favour and trust of their masters. Through the Middle Ages up until the early modern period,[53] a major source of slaves sent to Muslim lands was Central and Eastern Europe. Slaves of Northwestern Europe were also favored. The slaves captured were sent to Islamic lands like Spain and Egypt through France and Venice. Prague served as a major centre for castration of Slavic captives.

After the Seljuks conquered parts of Asia Minor, they brought to the devastated lands Greek, Armenian and Syrian farmers after enslaving entire Byzantine and Armenian villages and towns.[74]
Slavery was a legal and important part of the economy of the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman society[75] until the slavery of Caucasians was banned in the early 19th century, although slaves from other groups were still permitted.[76] In Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), the administrative and political center of the Empire, about a fifth of the population consisted of slaves in 1609.

A member of the Ottoman slave class, called a kul in Turkish, could achieve high status. Black castrated slaves, were tasked to guard the imperial harems, while white castrated slaves filled administrative functions
The strong abolitionist movement in the 19th century in England and later in other Western countries influenced slavery in Muslim lands.


#15237197
@Pants-of-dog

Later surgical abortions aren’t such a problem in Canada, as I believe the method known as partial birth abortion hasn’t been outlawed.
This is a relatively safe method of abortion, as there’s far less chance of the surgeon perforating the uterus.

It takes great skill to remove a dead foetus from the uterus in bits. The potential to cause damage is very high.

Not many surgeons have that skill, mainly because very late term abortions are rare and most surgeons don’t have the experience needed.

I was interested to learn that the induction method is seldom used in the USA.

I’m not sure why that might be.
#15237222
wat0n wrote:So there are people who would abort 32 week old fetuses after all, huh?


Yes, for all sorts of reasons. The vast majority of these cases are due to fetal abnormalities that would risk the life of the pregnant person or the child, or other similar medical reasons.
#15237226
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, for all sorts of reasons. The vast majority of these cases are due to fetal abnormalities that would risk the life of the pregnant person or the child, or other similar medical reasons.


But we've seen that the language is that it should be legal for any reason ITT.

You were wondering if there would be any woman psychopathic enough to do it. You've got your response, and advocated on PoFo (unsurprisingly).
#15237228
wat0n wrote:But we've seen that the language is that it should be legal for any reason ITT.


Yes, and it should be.

You were wondering if there would be any woman psychopathic enough to do it. You've got your response, and advocated on PoFo (unsurprisingly).


I have no idea what you are talking about.
#15237230
What we’ve actually said is that the reasons are none of our business.

If the woman and her medical team agree abortion is necessary, then that’s all anyone needs to know.

It’s your prerogative to believe that any woman who is terminating a pregnancy at 32 weeks because the foetus has a severe abnormality and can’t survive, has to be psychotic.
#15237231
Oh so doctors can actually say no to an abortion now, @snapdragon? That wasn't your tune the last time we discussed this. Last time, you said the woman and only the woman should be able to decide whatever happens to her body.

A pregnancy can be terminated at the 32nd week without performing an abortion, so why wouldn't that be the way to do it?
#15237232
wat0n wrote:Oh so doctors can actually say no to an abortion now, @snapdragon? That wasn't your tune the last time we discussed this. Last time, you said the woman and only the woman should be able to decide whatever happens to her body.

A pregnancy can be terminated at the 32nd week without performing an abortion, so why wouldn't that be the way to do it?


An abortion is, by definition, a termination of pregnancy.

Do you mean that it can be done without killing the fetus?
#15237234
snapdragon wrote:What we’ve actually said is that the reasons are none of our business.

If the woman and her medical team agree abortion is necessary, then that’s all anyone needs to know.

It’s your prerogative to believe that any woman who is terminating a pregnancy at 32 weeks because the foetus has a severe abnormality and can’t survive, has to be psychotic.



States will decide instead of fed.gov

Duke it out at the state level.
#15237235
wat0n wrote:Induced labor is not an abortion, yet it terminates any pregnancy.


Not all mammals are horses. Just like not all terminations of pregnancy are abortions.

That does not change fact that horses are, by definition, mammals. Like abortions are, by definition, terminations of pregnancies.

Now, did you mean that at 32 weeks, the fetus could be removed without killing it?
#15237242
wat0n wrote:Yes.

No, inducing labor is not an abortion. Giving birth itself isn't an abortion either.


If the unborn child can be kept alive, that would be good for obvious reasons. The vast majority of the time, this is not possible.

Again, the vast majority of abortions at this stage are due to dire medical circumstances.
#15237245
@Pants-of-dog
Again, the vast majority of abortions at this stage are due to dire medical circumstances.


Source?
#15237247
@Pants-of-dog and as I said earlier, pretty much no one is against abortion for purely medical reasons. Even in this ruling, the SCOTUS held that abortion should be analyzed using the "rational basis" standard for review i.e. "does the abortion regulation rationally accomplish legitimate state interests?". This means states must allow abortions for medical reasons.
#15237248
wat0n wrote:Oh so doctors can actually say no to an abortion now, @snapdragon? That wasn't your tune the last time we discussed this. Last time, you said the woman and only the woman should be able to decide whatever happens to her body.


Both is right. An individual doctor is able to refuse to carry out an abortion, but in that case they have to advise the woman where her wishes can be accommodated. They can’t stop her going elsewhere in any way.

A pregnancy can be terminated at the 32nd week without performing an abortion, so why wouldn't that be the way to do it?


You seem to know all about it, so why not tell us?
#15237250
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog and as I said earlier, pretty much no one is against abortion for purely medical reasons. Even in this ruling, the SCOTUS held that abortion should be analyzed using the "rational basis" standard for review i.e. "does the abortion regulation rationally accomplish legitimate state interests?". This means states must allow abortions for medical reasons.


This is true.

Now, you had mentioned earlier something about some woman having an elective abortion at 32 weeks. What were you talking about?

In fact, since Canada has no law against such an abortion, there should be at least some cases in the last 38 years or so since the Morgentaler decision. And in all those years of debating this, not a single supporter of abortion laws has provided me with one.
  • 1
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 93

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]