Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[StrangeSox]

study finds babies are racist.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/9-month-olds-show-ra...-135132410.html

 

literally lol'd at this post

[BigSqwert]

literally lol'd at this post

ditto

[Soxbadger]

Yeah i've said before the morning after pill or whatever is fine. But life, to me, certainly begins much earlier than the current deadline for legal abortions (24 weeks in some states). I think your "it's not alive unless it can live on its own" is a pretty crappy standard to go by.

 

And the 10 weeks is the first time you normally go in to see the doctor. Heartbeats can be heard in 5-6 weeks.

 

And I agree that we can always reevaluate the time line and maybe at 24 weeks we should be protecting the child.

 

I am talking about this situation:

 

Person A and B are having protected sex. The condom breaks. 2 days later the girl takes a pregnancy test and finds out that she is pregnant. She immediately schedules an abortion.

 

In that situation it just does not seem that the govt has a legitimate interest in forcing those 2 people to have a child. I get that if you sit around and wait, that your right to an abortion should expire. But if you take every step to get one as quickly as possible, I think that is taking responsibility. Mistakes happen.

 

Hickory,

 

So if I can't afford medical bills for my 2 year-old, I can just have her killed also? Since that's the litmus test here and not whether or not she is a human being with a right to live?

 

No, a 2 year old is clearly alive and therefore has its own rights.

 

Once something is "born" it has rights.

[Jenksismyhero]

And I agree that we can always reevaluate the time line and maybe at 24 weeks we should be protecting the child.

 

I am talking about this situation:

 

Person A and B are having protected sex. The condom breaks. 2 days later the girl takes a pregnancy test and finds out that she is pregnant. She immediately schedules an abortion.

 

In that situation it just does not seem that the govt has a legitimate interest in forcing those 2 people to have a child. I get that if you sit around and wait, that your right to an abortion should expire. But if you take every step to get one as quickly as possible, I think that is taking responsibility. Mistakes happen.

 

Hickory,

 

 

 

No, a 2 year old is clearly alive and therefore has its own rights.

 

Once something is "born" it has rights.

 

Well right, but that's the easy scenario. The questions is more about what happens at the 10 week, 15 week, 20 week mark. And then you have people like SS that think it's a crime against humanity that women are asked to wait 24 hours before making a decision (the horror!) or how terrible it is that we make women (and men) responsible for their actions by making THEM pay for the procedure out of their own pocket (again, the horror!)

[BigSqwert]

Well right, but that's the easy scenario. The questions is more about what happens at the 10 week, 15 week, 20 week mark. And then you have people like SS that think it's a crime against humanity that women are asked to wait 24 hours before making a decision (the horror!) or how terrible it is that we make women (and men) responsible for their actions by making THEM pay for the procedure out of their own pocket (again, the horror!)

Which medical procedures have you undergone where the government forced you to wait 24 hours? What is the point of making them wait?

[StrangeSox]

Well right, but that's the easy scenario. The questions is more about what happens at the 10 week, 15 week, 20 week mark. And then you have people like SS that think it's a crime against humanity that women are asked to wait 24 hours before making a decision (the horror!) or how terrible it is that we make women (and men) responsible for their actions by making THEM pay for the procedure out of their own pocket (again, the horror!)

 

I think it's pretty s***ty to throw up ever-more barriers to a woman's choice on her own reproductive health, yes. This can really impact women in more rural states where abortion services are limited, as they now how to drive a long distance to the clinic and then stay over night. In increases the financial burden and will affect poor women the most. It's also pretty damn insulting to assume that a woman who has chosen to have an abortion hasn't thought about it already. This is also true of the various mandatory sonogram laws and forced rape-wand laws except that those add an extra-special shame and humiliation factor via completely unnecessary procedures.

 

'We Have No Choice': One Woman's Ordeal with Texas' New Sonogram LawThe painful decision to terminate a pregnancy is now—thanks to Texas' harsh new law—just the beginning of the torment.

 

edit: thanks for the reminder, made my annual donation to PP!

Edited May 4, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

I thought this was the Obama Re-Election thread, lol

[southsider2k5]

I thought this was the Obama Re-Election thread, lol

 

They all are

[Balta1701]

They all are

Swing and a miss.

[StrangeSox]

They all are

I'm confused why Republicans here still make these sorts of posts.

 

[cabiness42]

Hickory,

 

 

 

No, a 2 year old is clearly alive and therefore has its own rights.

 

Once something is "born" it has rights.

 

That is the current definition, yes, but it's very outdated given what we now know about fetal development.

 

Also, I'll ask you the same question I ask everybody who claims that human rights begin with birth:

 

If a woman who is a week from her due date, having no compelling financial or medical reason for doing so, simply decided on a whim to have an abortion, should that be her right? You're saying that the baby has no rights until birth, so what other reason is there to stop a woman from doing this?

 

[cabiness42]

Which medical procedures have you undergone where the government forced you to wait 24 hours? What is the point of making them wait?

 

You have to wait at least 24 hours for any non-emergency medical procedure. What is the point of making this one different?

 

[BigSqwert]

You have to wait at least 24 hours for any non-emergency medical procedure. What is the point of making this one different?

That's 100% not true. I've had a mole surgically removed on the spot at a dermatologist.

[Jake]

That's 100% not true. I've had a mole surgically removed on the spot at a dermatologist.

 

I went to the gynecologist and had my fetus removed on the spot

 

Dr. Quik's Speedy Abortion Service! they'll get all the business, no one likes that pesky wait

[Y2HH]

That's 100% not true. I've had a mole surgically removed on the spot at a dermatologist.

 

Did you actually just compare an invasive abortion procedure to that of a mole removal?

 

[BigSqwert]

Did you actually just compare an invasive abortion procedure to that of a mole removal?

 

No. I responded to his false statement that all non-emergency medical procedures require a 24 hour waiting period.

[Soxbadger]

That is the current definition, yes, but it's very outdated given what we now know about fetal development.

 

Also, I'll ask you the same question I ask everybody who claims that human rights begin with birth:

 

If a woman who is a week from her due date, having no compelling financial or medical reason for doing so, simply decided on a whim to have an abortion, should that be her right? You're saying that the baby has no rights until birth, so what other reason is there to stop a woman from doing this?

 

I clearly covered this in my original post.

 

A fetus 1 week from its due date would absolutely be able to survive on its own if removed from the mother. Therefore it has rights.

 

I never said that a fetus has no rights until birth, I said a fetus has no rights until it can survive on its own with current medical technology. And when I say survival, I mean depending entirely on its mother, not that even after the baby is born it still has needs and still technically couldnt survive on its own.

 

As for the 24 hour waiting period, generally you have to go to an gyno, then you have to have an appointment set, so to me that would cover 24 hour waiting period. I would have to see exactly what is proposed, IE if they mean you have to wait overnight at the facility to have the procedure as a "cool down" time, that would be a no go, but if they simply are saying you cant have an abortion on the same day as you call, I could potentially be convinced that isnt the worst thing.

 

 

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Did you actually just compare an invasive abortion procedure to that of a mole removal?

 

 

Many early abortions are done with pills. They're not procedures at all.

[CrimsonWeltall]

As for the 24 hour waiting period, generally you have to go to an gyno, then you have to have an appointment set, so to me that would cover 24 hour waiting period. I would have to see exactly what is proposed

 

Usually it means you have to see the doctor and wait 24 hours from that point.

 

[cabiness42]

I never said that a fetus has no rights until birth, I said a fetus has no rights until it can survive on its own with current medical technology. And when I say survival, I mean depending entirely on its mother, not that even after the baby is born it still has needs and still technically couldnt survive on its own.

 

What do you mean exactly by "depending entirely on its mother?" Any baby that would need any kind of medical attention after being born has no rights? My son was born 4 weeks early and required one week in the NICU? Does that mean he shouldn't have had any rights before being born?

Edited May 7, 2012 by HickoryHuskers

[Y2HH]

No. I responded to his false statement that all non-emergency medical procedures require a 24 hour waiting period.

 

Yes, I know that. Sorry, I meant to green my text and didn't.

 

You know I'd never hit you with a stick...lightly...

Edited May 7, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Usually it means you have to see the doctor and wait 24 hours from that point.

 

Then I would disagree with that. I can see a legitimate argument about a "cool down", but if you make an appointment go to the dr, you should be able to do whatever you want as you had to wait a few days already.

 

 

What do you mean exactly by "depending entirely on its mother?" Any baby that would need any kind of medical attention after being born has no rights? My son was born 4 weeks early and required one week in the NICU? Does that mean he shouldn't have had any rights before being born?

 

Nope, and Im starting to wonder if your purposefully trying to argue and not recognize what I am saying.

 

Your son survived in the NICU, without his mother, that means by my definition he had rights.

 

Now I am referring to a fetus that under no circumstances (ie NICU, all the money in the world) would survive outside of the mother. Ive already said that I would be willing to consider giving rights as early as 19 weeks, which would have been considerably earlier than your son was born.

 

So once again let me explain;

 

If a fetus can not survive in a NICU or with any other medical/science currently known to man, it is not alive and therefore can not be protected.

 

If a fetus can survive outside of the mother, the scales then have tipped to where it does deserve some protection.

 

Now the reason I say "some" is that the fetus is still attached to the mother and therefore if there is a medical emergency etc, the fetus could still be destroyed to save the mother. Ultimately that would be up to the family to decide.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Then I would disagree with that. I can see a legitimate argument about a "cool down", but if you make an appointment go to the dr, you should be able to do whatever you want as you had to wait a few days already.

 

Ignoring the pill version, I'm guessing most women who get physical abortions don't know exactly what will happen or what the effects will be. They set up an appointment with a doctor but they're given the explanation right there. That's not enough time to consider the ramifications of the decision IMO, and adding a 24 hour wait isn't some huge barrier..

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, and Im starting to wonder if your purposefully trying to argue and not recognize what I am saying.

 

Your son survived in the NICU, without his mother, that means by my definition he had rights.

 

Now I am referring to a fetus that under no circumstances (ie NICU, all the money in the world) would survive outside of the mother. Ive already said that I would be willing to consider giving rights as early as 19 weeks, which would have been considerably earlier than your son was born.

 

So once again let me explain;

 

If a fetus can not survive in a NICU or with any other medical/science currently known to man, it is not alive and therefore can not be protected.

 

If a fetus can survive outside of the mother, the scales then have tipped to where it does deserve some protection.

 

Now the reason I say "some" is that the fetus is still attached to the mother and therefore if there is a medical emergency etc, the fetus could still be destroyed to save the mother. Ultimately that would be up to the family to decide.

 

I still think this is such a weak standard to go by. Go look at the development of babies around that time period. They're 100% human at that point, with distinct human features. It's not just a bundle of microscopic cells.

 

[cabiness42]

Nope, and Im starting to wonder if your purposefully trying to argue and not recognize what I am saying.

 

Based on what you said below, I misunderstood what you were saying

 

Now I am referring to a fetus that under no circumstances (ie NICU, all the money in the world) would survive outside of the mother. Ive already said that I would be willing to consider giving rights as early as 19 weeks, which would have been considerably earlier than your son was born.

 

Great! If you're willing to give rights as early as 19 weeks, then you've lost endorsement money from NARAL, NOW, or any other left-wing organization, because none of them would ever consider restricting abortion that early.

 

 

Now the reason I say "some" is that the fetus is still attached to the mother and therefore if there is a medical emergency etc, the fetus could still be destroyed to save the mother. Ultimately that would be up to the family to decide.

 

I would venture to say that less than 1% of people who call themselves pro-life would disagree with that. I think I've met one person in my life who would not allow an exception to save the life of the mother.

[Soxbadger]

Ignoring the pill version, I'm guessing most women who get physical abortions don't know exactly what will happen or what the effects will be. They set up an appointment with a doctor but they're given the explanation right there. That's not enough time to consider the ramifications of the decision IMO, and adding a 24 hour wait isn't some huge barrier..

 

I still think this is such a weak standard to go by. Go look at the development of babies around that time period. They're 100% human at that point, with distinct human features. It's not just a bundle of microscopic cells.

 

 

Part 1, I dont think 24 hours is a huge barrier either, which is why Id have to see the proposal. As I said, it generally goes, first to gyno, then a separate visit days/weeks later for the actual abortion. In that case they usually have spent days/weeks after the gyno visit thinking about their choice. There absolutely should not be any requirement to then wait again at the next appoint.

 

Part 2, it may be a weak standard, but I dont have a better one. Human features does not make something alive, if I create a robot that looks and operates exactly like a human, it would have no rights, why? Because being alive goes beyond mimicking humanity, it goes beyond having human features, it means that it actually has to be a living/breathing human, so while the cells may imitate life, they are definitely not alive.

 

I just do not see any compelling reason to give govt the power to protect that which is not alive. I already think its troubling how much power the govt has over our personal life, so when in doubt, I side against govt.

 

Great! If you're willing to give rights as early as 19 weeks, then you've lost endorsement money from NARAL, NOW, or any other left-wing organization, because none of them would ever consider restricting abortion that early.

 

 

I would venture to say that less than 1% of people who call themselves pro-life would disagree with that. I think I've met one person in my life who would not allow an exception to save the life of the mother.

 

Part 1, I dont care what they think or what they would do. My opinion is based on my beliefs.

 

Part 2, I dont know, sometimes it seems that people who are pro-life are saying that the fetus rights are equal to the mothers rights, so I can never be sure where they draw the line for what is "okay" and what is "not okay". Im a big fan of consistency, so my position hopefully is consistent regardless.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Soxbadger