Democratic Party takes major stand for reproductive freedom

originally posted by: windword

That's not what the Court said at all. The court said that abortion was always legal pre fetal viability. It doesn't matter if the enviable fetus is 6 weeks or 9 1/2 months.

Oh boy...

...
While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life." The trimester framework addressed when a woman's fundamental right to abortion would be absolute, and when the state's interests would become compelling. In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician.[36] From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[37] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."[38] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[37] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.[39] The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

The court ruled that the primary right preserved in Roe vs Wade was the right of the physician not the right of the mother. The physician and the "state" could decide

The court even ruled that on the second trimester the state could make the decision even against the wishes of the mother if her life was considered at risk.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You've just repeated exactly what I've always said.

We're not arguing Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade isn't broken, so don't try to fix it!

This thread is about the Hyde Amendment. Personally, I'm all for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Excuse me, but you have been proven wrong. Sorry to rain on your "fairy tale parade". HIllary and you amongst others, claim the Roe vs Wade give the right to the woman even on the day the baby is to be born, and this is false... Like I was saying, the left keeps trying, and trying, and trying to increase the time frame on abortion, when the court decided that after the second trimester the state could decide and not the mother... On the third trimester the state would decide in favor of the potential life as long as the mother was not at risk.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

claim the Roe vs Wade give the right to the woman even on the day the baby is to be born, and this is false...

It's not false! It's absolutely true! You don't seem to understand the medical side of this issue at all.

originally posted by: windword
You've just repeated exactly what I've always said.

We're not arguing Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade isn't broken, so don't try to fix it!

This thread is about the Hyde Amendment. Personally, I'm all for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

First of all, I was responding to the claims made by a couple of members here about the Roe vs Wade decision which HILLARY tries to claim gives precedence to women up until the day the child is about to be born.

Second of all, this argument even shows the fact that the left wants to keep increasing the time when "women are freely to do abortion" even against the argument made in Roe vs Wade.

Third, the left now trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment shows that a great majority of the left wants to impose your belief on the rest of the population and want to force us all to pay for abortions...

The Obama administration tried to make all Americans pay for abortions by including a $1 U.S.D. fee to insurance providers which would cover abortions, which the taxpayers have to pay. Now the left wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: windword
You've just repeated exactly what I've always said.

We're not arguing Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade isn't broken, so don't try to fix it!

This thread is about the Hyde Amendment. Personally, I'm all for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

First of all, I was responding to the claims made by a couple of members here about the Roe vs Wade decision.

And you were proven incorrect in your assertion, over and over.

Second of all, this argument even shows the fact that the left wants to keep increasing the time when "women are freely to do abortion" even against the argument made in Roe vs Wade.

More lies! There have been no measures introduced by the left, to extend the abortion limit, there have however been hundreds introduced by the right limiting access, and suggesting to limit time periods a 20 week ban, a "when you hear a heart beat ban" and bogus "fetal pain" restrictions.

Third, the left now trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment shows that a great majority of the left wants to impose your belief on the rest of the population and want to force us all to pay for abortions...

Hello Pot!

Personally, I'd like to see the Us government be able to help girls that become pregnant through the sex trade, but right now the Hyde Amendment disallows such humanitarian endeavors.

If US medical insurance goes "single payer", or is required to be purchased through the government, then abortion should be covered in the cost of premium, just like it is with private insurance.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

HIllary and you amongst others, claim the Roe vs Wade give the right to the woman. even on the day the baby is to be born...

Do who in the what now? Nope!

Because: no.


Two libelous clauses..^...there....and here's your "finale":

..., and this is false.

DING DING!!!
Correct.

As you can see, what you said about me "is false."

*eyeroll*

a reply to: windword

In case you didn't notice I even provided a left wing source that corroborates my statements... Not to mention the fact "that the law" states the states can decide starting in the second trimester... (oh and btw, imo the state/State shouldn't make such decisions. But some here claim that since it is the law, it's what should be followed...)

The second trimester starts at week 13-28. So the separate states according "to the law" can decide whether to allow an abortion or not. The only factor used is whether the mother's health is at risk over the "potential life" of the human fetus.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You really ought to consider stopping spreading disinformation.


You could hang out on Infowars or some other place..
....TheBlaze.....World Net Daily....
Newsmax....
FOXnews.....


We here actually would like to get past all that superficial crap and discuss reality........and what you are dropping in your wake here at ATS is highly suspect, and propaganda.

In my opinion.

But I'm done; we've exhausted whatever shred of hope there was for some intelligent discourse.

Cheers to xuen for neglecting it -- happily, it died. It was hopelessly deformed and cognitively challenged.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You have no idea what reality is... I didn't excerpt from the blaze... I didn't excerpt from World Net Daily, I didn't excerpt from Newsmax, or Foxnews, etc...

Not to mention that your argument is flawed, because you only want links from left wing sources and you claim only those are valid...

I excerpted from wikipedia, a very liberal/left wing source and from sources in the UK and others...


And of course you are done... It's what you always do when proven wrong...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In case you didn't notice I even provided a left wing source that corroborates my statements...

Which statements? You're all over the board, and you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable" www.slate.com...

At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[37] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother..
en.wikipedia.org...

The second trimester starts at week 13-28. So the separate states according "to the law" can decide whether to allow an abortion or not.

Nope. The state can regulate the procedure to protect a woman's health, it can't forbid the procedure to protect potential life.

From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling

Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

a reply to: windword

I am not the one having a reading comprehension problem...

...
From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[37] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."[38] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[37] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.[39] The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Go back to the link I posted where the Editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics replied.
Look at the links he has on his response.

Go back to the telegraph article as well, and look at the links they used. Click on the bloody links they provided in the text!!!

TheBlaze. They (among others) grabbed it and ran with it - you caught the pass, and tried to conflate it even more.
Look at the sources ON THE LINK YOU ORIGNALLY PROVIDED.

You did source TheBlaze - albeit indirectly.

And, you are full of it. Propaganda and lies. Saying the source itself is lying? The freaking editor of the Journal replied himself, and I have provided you with that reply. Read it.

Stop being it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
...
TheBlaze. They (among others) grabbed it and ran with it - you caught the pass, and tried to conflate it even more.
Look at the sources ON THE LINK YOU ORIGNALLY PROVIDED.

You did source TheBlaze - albeit indirectly.

Are you that obtuse that you can't understand you cannot simply deny a source as valid unless you can corroborate evidence against the claims made in that source?...

My original source included a video of Hillary Clinton making the claim the of Roe vs Wade law is in favor the mother even on the day the child is to be born and this is not true...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dude, you so lost this one. Hogwash has been made of your sources and point.

Try again.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Dudette, learn to properly respond... Making claims that sources you don't want to accept are not valid is simply a red herring. You need to provide evidence and not claims that the statements made by Hillary were wrong...

The Obama administration has been doing the very same thing, trying to impose their will on everyone else even against the law you claim "must be followed".

You seem to love to force others to your will. I never said abortion should be banned... But let's call a spade a spade, and not a duck. You keep reversing your statements even against what you have stated previously.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am not the one having a reading comprehension problem... ...

From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[37] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."

Again, reading comprehension! During this period, the state can only regulate the procedure for the protection and preservation of the life of the woman seeking an abortion. This is why the Supremes just shot down the Texas' abortion clinic bans, because they didn't actually protect the mothers well being at all.

Good lord the ricocheting dribble that passes for logic, from the Syllabus of Roe v. Wade:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Source - Cornell Law

AFTER FETAL VIABILITY

THE STATE MAY PREVENT ABORTION

EXCEPT

FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE LIFE OR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You need to provide evidence and not claims that the statements made by Hillary were wrong...

THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE!

She said what she said = that is the law now.

She said that. We all heard her say that.

What she did not say was

that it was what she wanted or thought was okay.

You misrepresented what she said by injecting an imagined "what she meant was". She never said that. Not ever. She did not say that. Then you accused me of thinking the same thing.
Then you accused "progressives" of wanting to enforce eugenics. All of those are totally false; all are deliberate lies.

From there, you went to your article about the controversial Journal article, and tried to portray that as some sort of "evidence" that science wants to begin eugenics via infanticide.

ANOTHER LIE.
Then you want to disavow the behavior from fanatics like yourself? TheBlaze readers sent death threats. The Editor pointed out that the venom coming from your side of the field is far more revealing about the state of our society -----
you all are catastrophically dangerous to intelligent discourse about any of these topics. It makes me sad.

So --- anyway, thanks for playing.
You lose. And if you really can't see how twisted your thought pattern is, please consider seeing a professional to help you sort out what it is you are trying to say.

*mic drop*

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Your post demonstrates that you're getting really good at parsing the BS, if I may say so.

And in this case, you're spot on.