Democratic Party takes major stand for reproductive freedom

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oh and btw, as for the statements/claims made by the medical journal... That's how laws are eventually passed... The "progressive" scientists/researchers making those statements in the research I excerpted are even trying to argue that the life or death of newborns, as in babies that have already been born, can be decided by the parents even if the child is completely healthy. That's the path that "progressiveness" is taking us on...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Does the law state what Clinton claims?...

...
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...

I demonstrated it doesn't, since it doesn't say what she claims it is only rational to come to the conclusion that it is what she thinks the law should be, because it is not what the law states...

Roe vs Wade does not give women the right to kill the "potential life" starting in the third trimester, and in the second trimester the state can even intercede against the woman's wish if her health is at risk.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Does the law state what Clinton claims?... I demonstrated it doesn't,

Yes, you did demonstrate that. I pointed it out to you. And.....so?

Wait - what? The law itself, which does not grant neonatal rights, is the law. That law is the law. Clinton claims that in fact, that is the law.

The law DOES NOT SAY WHAT SHE THINKS ABOUT IT

since it doesn't say what she claims

right - the law does not tell you her opinion about it -
but it DOES INDEED say that prenatal rights are not granted.........

so.......pray continue........

it is only rational to come to the conclusion that it is what she thinks the law should be,

No. Nope!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The obvious primary concern in Roe v. Wade is for the health of the mother not the fetus (not even the viable fetus).

In the first trimester, it is the woman's choice, with no state intervention allowed.

In the second trimester through viability, it is still the woman's choice, but the question of her health becomes an important part of the question of any regulation,

After viability, the woman's health is still the superior concern over the health of the fetus.

How can this be made any more simple for you?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Roe vs Wade does not give women the right to kill the "potential life" starting in the third trimester, and in the second trimester the state can even intercede against the woman's wish if her health is at risk.

False and FALSE!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
After viability, the woman's health is still the superior concern over the health of the fetus.

How can this be made any more simple for you?

Because it is not the rule of Roe vs Wade...

...
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...


How can the above be any less obvious to you?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

REALLY?????



Just stop. Really. You're embarrassing yourself.
Talk to you later.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You've lost it.

From your own quote:

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.

Read the portion I emphasized in bold text and explain what it means.

originally posted by: windword

False and FALSE!

Not false, if the "state" decides that the woman's health is at risk, the law states that even if the mother doesn't want the abortion then the state can intercede in behalf of the mother.

...
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...

It's part of the decision made in Roe vs Wade.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
Read the portion I emphasized in bold text and explain what it means.

I read it, and added it several times... It still states it is a decision the state can make starting on the third trimester... Again for the second time, as I mentioned this before, it is my opinion that the state/State shouldn't have that choice....

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
Read the portion I emphasized in bold text and explain what it means.

I read it, and added it several times... It still states it is a decision the state can make starting on the third trimester... Again for the second time, as I mentioned this before, it is my opinion that the state/State shouldn't have that choice....

This is not about what you say or think or believe about Roe.

What do the words I highlighted from the R v W decision STATE clearly for all to see?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is an erroneous statement.

Roe vs Wade does not give women the right to kill the "potential life" starting in the third trimester, and in the second trimester the state can even intercede against the woman's wish if her health is at risk.

Roe V Wade doesn't allow for the prohibition of late term abortions!

No one gets an abortion on demand at 9 months! The only reason women are getting abortions at that late stage is because their life/health is at risk. It's erroneous to suggest that Roe V Wade allows the state to prohibit a late term abortion that a doctor deems medically necessary to save the life of the mother. That's the Catholic Church's job!

Jeeeeze! You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension!

Roe vs Wade does not give women the right to kill the "potential life" starting in the third trimester, and in the second trimester the state can even intercede against the woman's wish if her health is at risk.

and I'm the one trying to take a women's right to take risks in an attempt to bring the child to term??
this isn't what they said...
what they said that in the second trimester the state can make common sense regulations for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the patients.

what you seem to be saying is that the state can actually force the women into an abortion if the doctor feels it would preserve her health.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(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.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

originally posted by: dawnstar

what you seem to be saying is that the state can actually force the women into an abortion if the doctor feels it would preserve her health.

What Electric is trying to say (you've got to understand how backward logic works) is that the State knows better than a woman does what is healthy for her and will prevent her from "killing her baby" as that will cause her mental stress in the future ... or some such rot.

We're "feeding a troll" here ladies ... i.e. we're appealing to logic and reason and obvious fact with a zealot for which none of those matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

no, she is just assuming that the state would use the power to prevent her from getting an abortion by coming up with trumped up risks to her health.
but by removing the decision from the hands of the women to the state, I would venture to guess they'd be just as likely to be forcing abortions onto women they see as being in danger.

if there is any real danger in the picture, then the women should have a voice as to weather or not she wishes to face that danger. weather the danger is from the desired abortion, or the natural birth process if left to continue on it's way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is certainly not what I am saying... What I wrote, and gave excerpts and the link a couple of times, is that Roe vs Wade does give the state such power. I even stated twice that the state/State shouldn't be making any such calls... My statements couldn't be more clear than that.

originally posted by: Tsukimidnightmoon
a reply to: BO XIAN

And now its your turn to be taken down from that pedestal you are so fond of.

THEY THINK, to whatever feeble degree they think at all, . that THEY are immune from the same treatment they extend to the newly conceived.

A lump of protein should have rights now? I suppose we should start giving rights to severed hands and whatnot. Maybe we should tie up the courts with protest about removing tumors??

THEY think that they will be able to live out their self-absorbed, narcissistic, dependent, entitlement addicted lives with impunity and no significant consequences until very old age . . . and that cushioned by more entitlements.

YOU think that you have a say in how other people conduct themselves. That's about as narcissistic as it gets.

Evidently they are ignorant about the death panels already written into law.

I await your quote of laws about "death panels".

They are also quite clueless that the same tyrannical oligarchy that has today defined almost born babies as "tissue" can tomorrow define the unemployed, the aged, the surplus in whatever profession . . . etc. . . . as "tissue" on the body politic only suitable to be excised, terminated and trashed.

Your paranoid nonsensical rambling are not actual forms of arguments.

THIS ^ I miss Tsuki.

a reply to: In4ormant

There shall always be those who need our help. We should strive to give those people our help.

We will decide for ourselves who those people are. We will take our hard earned resources and choose what to do with them. It will be our....choice.

We will be Pro-Choice! Our choice!.

oh wow. This really, really dismays me.....

recently another member said "if you want acceptance from this class of people" (paraphrasing) you better shape up. We won't help you if you don't do as we say.

That's kidnapping, sir. That's extortion, and terrorism. That's torture and bribery and psychopathic BULLcrap.
Unbelievably arrogant and self-absorbed.

You remind me of a line from Muriel's wedding:


C'mon, have a drink with us?!!!!!

Have a drink with you? ...... I would rather swallow razor blades than drink with you!!!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Riiight, cause starting at 13-28 weeks human fetuses are "lumps of protein"...

Not even after fertilization are human fetuses "lumps of protein"...

A hand's cells that has been cut off don't regenerate, the cells die, only nails will continue growing, but it is not a new human life.

Said this thousands of times already, I do not agree with abortion, but it is your choice what you do. However, these claims that "human fetuses are lumps of protein" or "tumors" or "cancer" are completely wrong, not to mention inane arguments.

These sort of arguments are the reason why the Supreme Court on Roe vs Wade drew a line in the sand, and stated that on the third trimester "the state/s can regulate abortion to protect potential life".

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67 -72.

www.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

This is a quote from the actual Roe vs. Wade supreme court opinion.
not from wikipedia, or some far left wing source, or from some far right wing source.
but from the full text of the majority opinion..

no where in it does it say that:

and in the second trimester the state can even intercede against the woman's wish if her health is at risk.

what it says is that in the first trimester, there state has no compelling interest to do anything, not to preserve the women's life, or to protect the unborn child. there shouldn't be any regulations whatsoever at that point, it should be a matter between the doctor and the patient alone. at this point, the risk abortion poses to the mother is less than what a natural birth would pose.

in the second trimester, those risks to the mother increases some, and the state's right to protect the health and well being of the mother increases. so they have the right to:

may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

and it's not until the point of viability that the state has an interest in the preservation of the potential life of the fetus.

it even gives some examples of what the mother and doctor should be considering when deciding if an abortion would be appropriate.

Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

it also gives an overview of the history of abortion legislation through the ages with is quite interesting to read.

nowhere in the opinion did I read that the doctor, or the state should have the right to force an abortion onto a women who does not desire it. I am not saying it ain't done, because I know of one person who it's been done to in the past. but then, they had to go to court and get the lady declared of unsound mind and not able to make her own decisions.

it just says that in the second trimester, the state can come up with reasonable laws designed to ensure the mother's welfare.