It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House passes 20 week abortion ban.

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


What you're looking to take away from women is their right to terminate a pregnancy when they get a dire prognosis, which can only be diagnosed after 20 weeks.

Women seeking late term abortions do so for their own health, not because they just found out they're pregnant, or because they lost their job or broke up with their baby daddy. They do so because they don't want a deformed or diseased child.


edit on 6-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nwtrucker


What you're looking to take away from women is their right to terminate a pregnancy when they get a dire prognosis, which can only be diagnosed after 20 weeks.

Women seeking late term abortions do so for their own health, not because they just found out they're pregnant, or because they lost their job or broke up with their baby daddy. They do so because they don't want a deformed or diseased child.



Dire? Define it. The bill allows for threats to the mother's health. Therefore a developing medical issues is within the bill.

The delineation on diseased/ deformed will have to be done by 20 weeks. If in doubt, abort. After that, society trumps the right to murder. Once again, works for me.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

but then who have to decide who's rights should be above the other..
does the right of the mother to continue living, continue doing those things others depend on her to do have any substance, or can that be caste aside, on the slim chance that she might live long enough to deliver a baby that is able to survive.
is a fetus' right to life elevated to the point that those few hours of painful life that it has a slim chance of experiencing so great that we should be able to extend the grief of the loss of that child by forcing the mother to carry the doomed child to term...
if the right of the fetus so great that it exceeds that of the mother and those who depend on her to the point where we should be able to hospitalized her to months to provide medical treatments fighting off the effects of that complicated pregnancy when doing so means that those children depending on her will be shipped off to the care of strangers in a foster care system that if full of abuse and neglect?

and if they can strip such basic rights away from the 1% of the pregnant women, what stops them from stripping these basic rights from the other 99%?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Why am I not surprised that some murders are fine by you?

SMH



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker





The bill allows for threats to the mother's health.


no it doesn't, show me where it does, find the bill, and give me a link to it. because the last I checked it didn't!!
it says nothing about her health. what it says is that an abortion can be performed TO SAVE HER LIFE. there is a pretty big difference there. it's my biggest gripe about the bill!




The delineation on diseased/ deformed will have to be done by 20 weeks. If in doubt, abort. After that, society trumps the right to murder. Once again, works for me.


most women, when they find clues that the fetus has developmental problems will be sent to specialists to determine the extent of those problems, they will then go and seek out second and third opinions hoping beyond hope that the initial findings were wrong. emotionally, they need to go through this process, to know for sure that there is no hope for their baby to live a meaningful life.
and you want to strip this from them???
callous sob!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



Dire? Define it. The bill allows for threats to the mother's health. Therefore a developing medical issues is within the bill.


Only after the fact, when there is a life threatening emergency. So, only after she's developed sepsis, liver failure, heart failure, will this bill allow for medical intervention. It does nothing to protect the woman from the effects a high risk pregnancy will have on her health, or even her ability to carry another pregnancy. What she and her doctor want is not considered under this bill.



The delineation on diseased/ deformed will have to be done by 20 weeks. If in doubt, abort.


Sorry, it doesn't work that way. These problems don't present until after 20 weeks. Woman who want a baby, but maybe at risk because of age or health issues wait until they know for sure that their baby won't be healthy, weigh their option and then decide what to do. They don't just discard a healthy fetus, because they don't know and fear what might happen, because of some arbitrary 20 week timeline. That's an absurd ask!

If a 24 week fetus isn't "viable" because of spina bifida or encephalitis, even Downs syndrome or other "dire" abnormalities, a woman should be able to get an abortion. Roe V Wade has already addressed this. There is no need to compromise on this issue.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Is there any medical procedure a man has to get permission for?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: nwtrucker

but then who have to decide who's rights should be above the other..
does the right of the mother to continue living, continue doing those things others depend on her to do have any substance, or can that be caste aside, on the slim chance that she might live long enough to deliver a baby that is able to survive.
is a fetus' right to life elevated to the point that those few hours of painful life that it has a slim chance of experiencing so great that we should be able to extend the grief of the loss of that child by forcing the mother to carry the doomed child to term...
if the right of the fetus so great that it exceeds that of the mother and those who depend on her to the point where we should be able to hospitalized her to months to provide medical treatments fighting off the effects of that complicated pregnancy when doing so means that those children depending on her will be shipped off to the care of strangers in a foster care system that if full of abuse and neglect?

and if they can strip such basic rights away from the 1% of the pregnant women, what stops them from stripping these basic rights from the other 99%?


Please stop with the hyperbole. The mother's survival is covered under the bill. You paint every possible negative scenario as some justification for the termination of 10s of millions of humans lives that has occurred since Roe V Wade.

Frankly, you should count yourself lucky your getting that 'option' until 20 weeks. it could have been a lot worse.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Frankly, you should count yourself lucky your getting that 'option' until 20 weeks. it could have been a lot worse.


Yeah Dawnstar ... you gals could be put back in chastity belts until a man has need of you!

#retch



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nwtrucker



Dire? Define it. The bill allows for threats to the mother's health. Therefore a developing medical issues is within the bill.


Only after the fact, when there is a life threatening emergency. So, only after she's developed sepsis, liver failure, heart failure, will this bill allow for medical intervention. It does nothing to protect the woman from the effects a high risk pregnancy will have on her health, or even her ability to carry another pregnancy. What she and her doctor want is not considered under this bill.



The delineation on diseased/ deformed will have to be done by 20 weeks. If in doubt, abort.


Sorry, it doesn't work that way. These problems don't present until after 20 weeks. Woman who want a baby, but maybe at risk because of age or health issues wait until they know for sure that their baby won't be healthy, weigh their option and then decide what to do. They don't just discard a healthy fetus, because they don't know and fear what might happen, because of some arbitrary 20 week timeline. That's an absurd ask!

If a 24 week fetus isn't "viable" because of spina bifida or encephalitis, even Downs syndrome or other "dire" abnormalities, a woman should be able to get an abortion. Roe V Wade has already addressed this. There is no need to compromise on this issue.



I will agree on the arbitrary point. Everything out of D.C. is an arbitrary. Everything. The rest? Sorry, no carte blanch answer for all of every scenario.. It is a compromise I, and I suspect many or most, can live with.

I hope it passes.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nwtrucker

Why am I not surprised that some murders are fine by you?

SMH


Why am I not surprised at you making such a comment?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

this bill is only directed toward a small 1.3% of the abortions... so no, it's far from 10s of millions.
so, there survival is covered under the bill, maybe... as long as the doctors are able to save her life, otherwise, well, if they let the condition go too far worrying about what the law says, it is possible that she could die!!
and, it doesn't account for the needless pain and suffering she might go through, it doesn't account for any permanent damage that might be done to her body!

and, my guess is that there is a much higher percentage of negative scenarios present in that 1.3% when that group is considered on it's own than there is in the other 99%! most states already have restrictions on the abortions in or near this time frame, ya know, like danger to mother's life and health, fetal abnormalities, rape and incest, ect. a few weeks, I believe after that 20 week mark, your options are reduced to a mere three doctors in the whole country.. and those doctors could charge you as much as $25,000 up front!!!

this is just needless legislation that is directed at a segment that is already highly regulated. it's purposely designed to fail in the supreme court because basically their goal is to get the christian right out to vote!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nwtrucker

Why am I not surprised that some murders are fine by you?

SMH


Why am I not surprised at you making such a comment?


You shouldn't be. I'm glad to point out the irrationality of positions like you're espousing here.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


no chasity needed, nunchucks will do just fine thank you, even for that man who feels he has a right to us!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
This is really not even a question, especially not for anyone who considers themselves a civil libertarian.

The idea that a woman has to justify having medical procedure done on her own body is absurd.

I repeat, do any men have to have legal permission to have treatments? No?

Gee. Wonder why?

The "compromise" here has been settled long ago; there is no other compromise to make. There is no reason any woman should be subject to any man or any legal restrictions on what she can do concerning her own body and health.

PERIOD.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66


no chasity needed, nunchucks will do just fine thank you, even for that man who feels he has a right to us!!!


Understood! It is absolutely astounding to me that some men believe that this nonsense is a "compromise" and even worse, that women should be "glad they're making it this easy."

Yes, women, you should be thankful that the 80% male dominated House of Representatives is going to let you have any control at all over your bodies.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Sexual reassignment, I think.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




The mother's survival is covered under the bill.


Sorry, that's not good enough. Besides that fact, her survival isn't even guaranteed.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Gryphon66


Sexual reassignment, I think.



Good point ... but that's not mandated by law, is it?


That's just a standard set in the medical/psychiatric community? To meet physical/mental qualifications for surgery?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Good point ... but that's not mandated by law, is it?


Probably. Malpractice insurance interests would likely lobby for to be a legal requirement.

Many states require women to undergo some sort of counseling before allowing her an abortion.


edit on 6-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join