5 Brutal Clips From House Abortion Access Hearing
By: Kipp Jones (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Kipp JonesMay 18th, 2022, 7:20 pm Twitter share button <?php // Post Body ?>
A House Judiciary Committee hearing about abortion access was filled with loaded questions, stunning answers and plenty of drama as lawmakers asked abortion providers and opponents about the issue.
A leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court has sparked an intense national abortion debate. The prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned saw much of the debate play out on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
"Making decisions about when and how to start a family is essential to women's lives," Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who chairs the committee, said during the hearing. "The right to decide whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy is central to life, liberty and equality. It is the very essence of what it means to have bodily autonomy, which is a prerequisite for freedom."
House Republicans disagreed with that assessment, and they pressed abortion advocates about the issue.
In one moment, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) pressed Dr. Yashica Robinson of Alabama about late-term abortions.
"Have you had human parts, human baby parts, arms, legs, as a result of an abortion performed at the time you just acknowledged you performed them?" Roy asked her.
She accused him of using "inflammatory language."
"One of the things that you all have done, throughout this hearing, is just use inflammatory language to talk about the care that we provide," Robinson said.
As the exchange continued Roy raised his voice and spoke over Robinson and listed off where he believes "baby parts" end up. "I have never seen that in a health care setting, ever. We don't put baby parts in freezers," she concluded, before Roy interrupted, "Where do they go?"
Rep. @chiproytx: "What is the latest you have performed an abortion?"
Dr. Robinson: "20 weeks"
Roy: "Have you had baby parts that you've had to discard or store?"
Robinson: "You have used inflammatory language." pic.twitter.com/g94XX7bxQH
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 18, 2022
In another moment that went viral on Twitter, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) asked Texas abortion advocate Aimee Arrambide if she believes men can have abortions.
"What do you say a woman is," he asked. "Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?"
Arrambide, a Democratic witness, responded with a simple: "Yes."
.@RepDanBishop: "Do you believe…that men can get pregnant and have abortions?"
Democrat abortion witness: "Yes." pic.twitter.com/GvA7SxUS21
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 18, 2022
Rep. Dan Bishop to Dr. Yashica Robinson: "You're a medical doctor. What's a woman?"
"I'm a woman," she replies. pic.twitter.com/KEH4ngYijk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 18, 2022
Rep. Bishop also asked Dr. Robinson that same question and Robinson hit back at Bishop charging, "I think it's important that we educate people like you about why we're doing the things that we do."
"And so the reason I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called," Robinson added.
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) also challenged Robinson, when he asked if she would support a scenario where a woman who is "seconds away from birthing a healthy child" wants an abortion.
"I can't even fathom that," Robinson said. "Just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped."
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) at abortion access hearing: "How about if a child is halfway out of the birth canal? Is an abortion permissible then?"
Dr. Yashica Robinson: "I can't even fathom that … just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped." pic.twitter.com/LtM92m9JKS
— The Recount (@therecount) May 18, 2022
Also during the hearing, Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) challenged the Supreme Court as a "majority without integrity."
She also attacked her Republican colleagues.
"To those in America who believe that my extreme MAGA colleagues aren't coming for you, they are coming for you," she said. "They are coming for your rights."
"To those in America who believe my extreme MAGA colleagues aren't coming for you: they're coming for you … If Samuel Alito tells you they're not coming for you, just remember this is a Supreme Court majority that lied …"
— Rep. Escobar (D-TX) during abortion access hearing pic.twitter.com/nKj4xTnYHh
— The Recount (@therecount) May 18, 2022
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) also reclaimed his time from a foster care advocate named Catherine Foster following a viral exchange between the pair.
Raskin accused pro-life advocates of calling for a "nationwide ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest."
Foster asked him, "If we added rape and incest exceptions, would you vote for it?"
Raskin responded: "I reclaim my time."
Raskin: "The GOP witness is calling for a nationwide ban on abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest."
Foster: "If we added rape and incest exceptions, would you vote for it?"
Raskin: "Reclaiming my time." pic.twitter.com/Z79apd2hcS
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 18, 2022
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Filed Under: AbortionChip RoyDan BishopJamie RaskinMike JohnsonRoe v. WadeVeronica Escobar Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
The Republicans conjured up every extreme situation about abortion they could imagine.
Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks later went off on the middle aged white men of the GOP who sit on that committee. And, she noted, the CDC says 93% of abortions take place before 13 weeks, and 99% before 20 weeks.
Why was the GOP asking doctors about abortions as the baby is halfway out the birth canal?
The low get lower.
[deleted]
Because they knew that's what the response would be. The overwhelming majority of Americans recognize taking the life of an innocent viable human is wrong. Its a very simple question to answer. But the Democratic Party is in the hands of extremists who reject even the most minimal restrictions of Roe and want zero restrictions on abortion ever, for any reason. So the Doctor couldn't answer like a non fanatic and simply denounce it as wrong and illegal.
Democrats now stand for unlimited abortion with no restrictions. All the histrionics in the world won't cover that up.
The low get lower.
You just minimized the taking of viable human life on the grounds that it's " rare. "
I can't wait to see you dismiss any anger about white supremacists murdering blacks because of their skin color given how much more rare it is. It's rare, no need to make it illegal, right?
Questions in congressional hearings should be serious ones, unless the hearing is on the subject of comedy.
I dont see any reasons why doctors , or anyone else, should be expected to answer absurd "gotcha" questions.
If the doctor answered the question about last second (literally) abortions, she would be elevating the question to a level of importance it didnt deserve.
"If the doctor answered the question about last second (literally) abortions, she would be elevating the question to a level of importance it didnt deserve"
Who asks such a dumb fucking question?
I remember a certain poster saying that abortions are performed up to birth and maybe he got that from this idiot! This doesn't happen and you'd have to be a complete moron to believe it does.
It was. It drove home how extreme the Democratic Party is on abortion.
Look at all your huffing and puffing to avoid admitting your party supports abortion up until birth, no restrictions.
" By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned"
" In this poll, by contrast, 57% of Americans oppose a ban after 15 weeks; 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases; and 54% say the court should uphold Roe , compared with 28% who say the ruling should be overturned."
So either you're intentionally lying or you have a warped definition of 'American'.
It's clear to see the slimy dishonesty of conservatives when the facts show 99% of abortions occurring before 20 weeks yet conservatives spend 99% of their time complaining about and using as their examples the 1% that occur after which are nearly all in cases where the mothers life is at risk.
Just because you say so? What an utterly arrogant and ignorant horse shit claim. It's no different than me claiming "Republicans now stand for unlimited white supremacy and demand their right to murder all blacks, minorities, atheists, liberals and progressives".
The 'histrionics' were on full display by Republicans as they continually exaggerate the number of late term abortions and their false claims such abortions are simply "on demand".
It really gets tiresome having to refute liars and religious zealots trying to push their religious beliefs on others while stripping women of their bodily autonomy. Right wing conservatism is a deadly virulent pandemic and I truly feel sorry for those living in States under their control, we can only hope those having to live under right wing white Christian conservative control can get out before their States mirror the Handmaids tale, which clearly from a conservatives perspective is a story of white Christian theocracy paradise.
THAT is utter bullshit Sean.
I'd suggest that you actually READ the bill that the House just passed and all but one Democrat voted for but I doubt that any amount of facts will get you to admit you're mistaken.
But here's a question for you though: Why did that bill include fetal viability?
Oh and BTFW, judging from the vote on that bill, the Republican Party is against women having bodily autonomy.
Where is the clip where Dr. Robinson was asked if a man could have a baby???
Did that fascinate you?
I think our readers should know that Dr woke spaceshot thinks a man can have a baby!
No, but I laughed my ass off when she said "yes" to men getting pregnant and having abortions!
High comedy indeed from the left!
Those witnesses…lol
Conservatives had a field day with that hearing.
the democrats have become the party of no limit abortions. No restrictions ever. I guess the next step on the road to legal infanticide will be the Senator boxer standard of “it’s not human till it leaves the hospital”
If you want to call making yourself look ridiculous "having a field day".
As always, opinions do vary.................
As always, [deleted][, everyone's got one.]
If you were a congressman, why would you ask a doctor her opinion of abortions that take place as the baby is halfway out of the birth canal?
Such abortions are incredibly rare, and only take place if the life of the mother is at stake.
Its like asking a gang banger at a hearing about drive by shootings what they would do if a UFO landed in the middle of a gunfight.
That sounds like an unsubstantiated opinion. Sorry but you can't say "only" in a statement like that where humans are involved. There are all kind of people with all kind of reasons and all degrees of unscrupulous.
At least six states allow abortions without any restrictions up to the moment of birth.
The significance is that men can become pregnant and men can get an abortion. What that means is that men have a voice in abortion. Abortion is no longer exclusively a woman's right to choose. Men have a right to choose, too.
Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions from happening, but it will make criminals of the doctors and the woman involved along with everyone else who assists in any way. Add in all the women who will die from botched back alley terminations to see additional costs to society for this national travesty!
That's just plain disinformation.
How so?
No, unfortunately we do know how things will happen if SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade. We saw it back in the 60's where some states made abortion illegal so women who wanted an abortion had to either travel to another state where abortion was legal (if they could afford the trip / time / etc) or take their chances in a back-alley lottery system. There were women who died from those back-alley abortions. For myself I do not want a return to those days. Unfortunately with the 'all or nothing' attitude of Congress (and the loudest of us) there's no reaching a compromise on this issue.
If, as expected, the Supreme Court reverses Roe VS Wade then most abortions will immediately be illegal in half the country's land mass making the doctors, women and even accomplices criminals.
We had a long standing compromise on this issue.
Do you mean Roe v Wade was the long standing compromise?
24 week viability was a long standing compromise, as was the Hyde amendment.
Which states would criminalize the woman and not exempt her from its criminal penalties or civil liability clauses?
Ok, the 24 week viability was a rule, not a law. The rule was set by Row v Wade. The Hyde amendment was a law that basically prevented federal money from being used to pay for abortion. But there was no compromise law that codified abortion, that is what I was talking about. With our current make up in Washington we cannot reach compromise on this issue. Without federal law it will go back to the states and we already know there are states who will allow abortion and there are states that will make it illegal. It's a trip back to the 60's. The extremists from both sides are large enough that the middle is insufficient to pass a law.
I agree that Roe v Wade was bad law, this needs to be codified in law at a national level IMO.
Do you think there would ever be? The right wing would rather go down in flames than allow abortion to continue.
Viability was established by the SC as a base line.
I'm saying the extremists on both sides are what prevent any sort of compromise. There are some on the right that feel that ANY abortion is evil and should not be allowed. There are some on the left that feel ANY restriction on abortion is evil and should not be allowed. Between those two extremes the middle can't come to any sort of compromise because the two extreme sides have the numbers to prevent any compromise.
That's all I'm saying. Neither extreme is willing to allow compromise. IMO it's wrong to only blame one side of the argument.
Yeah but the left had had compromise. Any voice that thinks abortion should happen right up until a week from birth are a very tiny minority that most disagree with and ignore.
It is the right wing, and not just a small faction, that will fight tooth and nail to make sure there is almost a total ban.
We on the left are not the ones preventing any sort of compromise.
That's the 'right'
Lol.. Outside of Joe Manchin, it's hard to find a Democrat who will endorse any abortion restrictions. Pennsylvania just nominated a candidate for Senator who explicitly states he wants no restrictions. Even Psaki can't name one restriction Joe Biden supports.
For me, on something like this, there really is no compromise. You either have the option or you don't.
So you really can't have compromise on something that is either on or off.
Compromise Imo would only be for limits.
Then he is an idiot.
Some of these Democrats you claim want no restrictions actually just want to allow late term abortions in cases like where the mother's life would be threatened.
Who are they? Seriously.
TRUTH.
I don't know. I don't look into people's medical history.
I can tell you some of my family history. My Grandmother had three children. She got pregnant again and it wasn't going well. The doctor finally told her if she tries to take it to term, it could take her life. I don't remember exactly what was wrong (or was never told) but they decided it was better to terminate the pregnancy than risk her life and leave her three children without a mother.
My Grandfather was kinda useless around the house. He couldn't even make a sandwich....
Maybe it's time to muzzle the extremists in both parties.
I'm pro-choice but there has to be limits. If anyone is guilty of "aborting" a baby when it's halfway down the birth canal, they are guilty of infanticide and should have the book thrown at them
My mother was in the same state. She had rheumatic heart disease but it wasn't diagnosed until after my brother was born. When she got pregnant the 3rd time she was advised to terminate her pregnancy. I'm glad she did but she was in poor health the rest of her life
I agree. I would even be open to letting the viability to be lowered. 24 weeks seems like a long time.
My daughter says they can keep a preemie born at 24 weeks alive.
Lol. I asked you about Democratic politicians policy preferences. .
Nice deflection
Whatever.
You are just making shit up, as usual.
I never said otherwise. The 'right' doesn't want you to have any options whatsoever.
I'd love for someone to tell me where this is happening and why it has to be stopped FFS.
Name one. With your attitude and expertise, it should be easy to do
My aunt died in child birth. She had pulmonary hypertension. She was advised of the risks and elected to have her child. All women need the option. No women decides to abort her child at birth.
"Name one. With your attitude and expertise, it should be easy to do"
Name one what?
Also, I'm quoting TG and speaking to her.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Stop poking your nose in my business.
Now that I have handed you your ass, Bugger off.
Ummmm you were talking to Sean............So that means, you haven't now, nor EVER handed ANYONE their ass. You can't even seem to track your own comments let alone see which one you are being asked to prove. Now, can you name one Democrat that will endorse any restrictions on abortion.
Bugger off.............cute............
Alabama, Oklahoma with more to come I'm sure
They may be able to keep it alive but will it be a fully functional human being? Or will it have severe brain and physical issues?
What are the minimum and maximum penalties on the woman expected to be?
It will usually have physical and mental developmental problems. So is it worth it? Sounds to me like a major expense for the rest of that child's life?
Is the Supreme Court making them illegal?
They can't. All they ruled was it was a right. There is no law. Well except in liberal la la land..........wishful thinking.
In effect, yes. Allowing red states to criminalize abortion is the same thing.
Right wing fascists are all about trashing the civil rights of others.
Right, fascists allow the people to vote on the laws that govern them. Anti fascists support a small group imposing unelected elites dictating their laws to everyone.
Orwell would love you
Who is making abortions illegal?
Come on guys, let's not stoop to their level. We all know that if SCOTUS reverses Roe v Wade there are some states that have trigger laws that will immediately make all abortions illegal. And we know there are other states that will quickly enact laws to stop abortions.
I don't support the poster of this thread in all things but let's not play that "got ya" game.
Right wing fascists are giving it one hell of a try.
This whole thing is based "what if" paranoia that come about from a leaked draft from the SCOTUS. It's not even an official statement. So, no, we DON'T know what you are claiming.
But the left wing are the ones perpetuating the bullshit like "abortions will be made illegal". And all from what? A "what if" scenario.
So you don't know about trigger laws?
[Deleted]
See 3.3.3
Do you believe triggers laws will go into play when a verdict is released?
Saying it is arbitrary and stupid to talk about until the final decision is released is nothing more than burying head in sand.
I believe we need to wait to see what the official decision is. Running around with your hair on fire isn't going to get anything done aside from making you all look like fools.
As does buying head in sand and acting like things don't exist.
So you are telling me it's better to go through all this bullshit over something you have no idea about? And expect me not to laugh at you?
We're not the ones looking like fools here.
We know that appears to be your only joy in life - laughing at or allegedly 'owning the libs' with your fact free contributions.
So talking about existing laws on the books is laughable?
Only if you are trying to deflect away from said laws.
Then provide the CFR and Part number of this law.
You want some 'part number', look it up your damn self.
Denying the laws are on the books is not a good look.
So you don't know exactly what law. That only tells me you are only regurgitating what somebody else told you and you ran with it without verification.
Then show me where in the books this "law" is or STFU.
That you refuse to believe these laws are there is really fucking weird.
It's not that I refuse to believe. It's that you refuse to look up the law you are claiming to be in the books. Of which you still haven't done.
I have given you links about the laws and where they are. I am not looking up specific names of the laws or their numbers.
The fact that you are using not having a case number as to some weird idea that they don't exist is like I said.
Really fucking weird.
There's no talking to a closed mind.
You gave me news article. No where in that article did it state exactly what law.
I have given you links about the laws and where they are.
I'm not looing for a case number. I'm looking for the exact law you have been blathering about. For instance, the law that prohibits protestors to gather outside of a SCOTUS Judges house is 18 USC §1507.
That is a law. Notice the difference between what I provided and the garbage you provided?
If you are looking for some gotcha game look somewhere else. No matter how many more replies you make, I am done with this.
Not my problem you don't think the evidence given is good enough.
You've already failed the "gotcha". You spouted off about a law and got called out that you cannot provide anything to back it up.
You haven't provided any evidence. You provided a statement you've spammed all over the place and a news article. That's it. I ask for 1 simple thing.
Court settlements are lawfully enforced every day.
They become common law as opposed to statute law passed by legislation.
That is the simple thing about it.
That is why the laws like RoevWade or the Flores Agreement
are enforced in spite of the statute so many people desperately seek.
Roe is not common law. Nor is the Flores Consent Agreement. Nor are they remotely alike
Then please explain to your friend why they are legally enforced
despite the lack of a statute.
And why only Congress can amend or end the Flores by codifying it.
The Executive branch can and has solicited the courts only to be denied,
they are still the 'law".
They cannot be nullified because of anyone's feelings that there ought to be a statute.
See id. at 732–33; 8
C.F.R. §§ 410.203(a)(5)
from
Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments (congress.gov)
Roe is "enforced" (simplifying) because the Constitution trumps a statute. As you may recall, in the words of Professor Ely, the Supreme court created a Constitutional right to abortion that" is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure." So a state or the feds can't pass a statute to take away a Constitutional right.
If you'd read Dobbs, you'd know that a statute trumps the common law, as any believer in democracy would of course support. That is what originally happened with abortion. So if Roe were merely "common law" any state could pass a law overriding it.
nd why only Congress can amend or end the Flores by codifying it.
You have the answer right there. Congress can pass a statute to end, amend or "codify" it. Codifying is simply passing a statute. It would be a sad day for this country indeed if a corrupt administration could enter into sham "settlements" (which the Clinton admin was famous for) to make laws that the people through Congress were powerless to reverse. So the settlement in Flores is binding unless Congress says different, and Democrats have prevented that from happening.
nullified because of anyone's feelings that there ought to be a statute.
I have no idea why you think feelings have something to do with any of this. It's very simple. The Constitution trumps statutes which trump both consent agreements and the common law.
I'm not the one claiming that it's law. I know it's not law. Now, please explain to your friend that if they want to claim it's "law" then they should be able to provide what part of the USC this law falls under. Just as I have about protesting at the homes of SCOTUS Justices.
You do realize the discussion is Roe v. Wade and not Biden's failure at the border don't you?
There, simplified it for everyone
Thank you for agreeing, for once.
Then you haven't read the thread, it is awash with "feelings and opinions".
In the case of Roe, it's a court decision about a Constitutional right. There is no higher law in this country.
I defer to Sean's answer minus his personal opinions.
Which is NOT A LAW.
The left is good at doing that.
keep clinging to that...
And making guns illegal will not stop murders from happening, but will make criminals of honest people who now own them.
If there is a Supreme Court case set to outlaw guns for half of America you might have a case.
There is not and so you do not. Don't be so silly.
Like JBB said, no need to be absolutely silly.
What an insightful comment! You know, making murder illegal hasn't stopped murder, either. But somehow turning cops into criminals will fix it.
Only far-left politics would treat those who kill as the victims.
The fact remains that any restrictions on abortion should be decided at the state level. Roe was wrongly decided.
And ignorant redneck fascists are still trying to foment another civil war among the states.
Merely your opinion. The states previously did decide on such things, and it didn't turn out well. That's why we have Roe. Going backwards will not help. It'll just make us regress.
I appreciate that in a specific person, it might be desirable to use different pronouns that reflect how they self-identify; but it’s not necessary when we are speaking in generalities and the issue is biology, not psychology. So, we end up with an absurd sound bite where a doctor says a man can be pregnant, and the whole discussion is derailed.
It will be a shame if Roe is overturned because we have a perfectly good compromise in place right now. Some abortions are allowed within reasonable limits. Consistent with those limits, states can further regulate the procedure so long as such regulations don’t produce an unreasonable burden on a woman’s rights.
I can see fiddling with those limits somewhat - e.g., changing the time limit from 23ish weeks to 15, but imposing a zero tolerance policy is inconsistent with legal precedent as well as developing trends throughout the civilized world. It would also be foolish, cruel, and unsupported by the people.
Why the need to change to 15 weeks? No fetus could live outside the womb at that timeframe. Thus the viability was set at 24.
Yeah, I’m not saying 15 is better than 24. But it is a line other countries have drawn. Arguably, any line we draw is somewhat arbitrary, and it’s the kind of thing reasonable minds can debate. Neither one of those lines through, has the effect of essentially making it impossible to exercise the right to terminate your own pregnancy. If Roe is overturned, it will become impossible in several states.
With modern medicine and technology it may become possible to keep a 20 week fetus alive
I read where it says in the Casey ruling it set it at 24 but it said it left the option open as things change.
My problem with 20 weeks is that how cost prohibitive would it be. In this country with health care costs being outrageous who could afford that? My daughter spent 1 week in the neonatal unit (I was suffering from pre-eclampsia and she came at 34 weeks) 34 years ago and our part of that was $28,000. That was 20% which was our deductible. And then anything that happened after that was not covered (unless it was a well baby check) because the insurance company deemed it a pre-existing condition based on her pre-term. I can't even imagine if she had to stay longer.
It is cost prohibitive. The only other option is to let the infant die a natural death. Keep it comfortable until it passes
That is why I support leaving it at 24 weeks. Just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be in all cases. I believe it should remain the decision of the PERSON most affected by the pregnancy, the woman.
The person most affected by an abortion is the baby being aborted.
No it is the person who has to carry it and then take care of it and pay the bills
“Neither one of those lines…”
We need to quit debating those lines and acknowledge the bottom line…any decision to be made lies solely with the woman with informed consultation from her chosen medical provider. Anything less involves the state…and no one should want that unless they are comfortable having an outside entity having a say in every medical decision one has to make.
“The person most affected by an abortion is the baby being aborted.”
Unless you are one arkpdx and cannot accept the simple fact that a woman’s personal medical decision somehow and in any way affects you.
They believe in magic. As one of their experts testifIed yesterday, the baby suddenly becomes a human when it’s born.
Late term pregnancies are protected in all states and late term abortions are few and generally only available under circumstances like rape, incest or to save the women's life.
So, fetuses do have rights. They do not have full rights though until they are born. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this.
Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions.
Preventing unwanted pregnancies does that.
Outrageous, why do parasites have rights?
Fuck Off!
…this cannot be said often enough, fuck off
You are at your best when you keep it short and sweet, much more understandable than when you're rambling.
I don't expect originality from you.
Then you will appreciate my using a quote:
“If you were half as funny as you think you are, you'd be twice as funny as you really are.” ~ H.N. Turteltaub
Absolutely, some are originalists and some are parrots. What's important is that you know yourself.
Ummmm - as a woman that went through two pregnancies, I think I am a better judge. So NO! You are wrong. There is no baby until first breath.
Any such law would be unconstitutional
They do not have full rights though until they are born.
I don't know what you mean by "full rights" Five year olds don't have full rights
aking abortions illegal won't stop abortions.
Very true. Making anything illegal doesn't stop it.
Preventing unwanted pregnancies does that.
Very true.
and, abortion prevents unwanted pregnancies from continuing to be a problem. A back up is always needed
adoption
So was that a puppy inside you kicking and moving and making you a bit uncomfortable every once in awhile?
It's so nice to know jbb and afrayedknot - that I am not alone here!
If the woman wants to continue being pregnant, which she may not want to do
If she is forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy she is not truly free
No Jim. Remember that the pro abortionists think that it is a parasite until it's born. They were giant tapeworms until just before they are born then the magically become babies going thru the birth canal.
Says the guys who never had a baby.
No people who believe are pro-choice, believe in cut off dates for abortions so that they are not hurting babies.
Abortions always hurt babies.
Babies yes. Fetuses not if they don't have a nervous system.
There is no baby in an abortion.
Let's see: they attach themselves to their host, they feed off the host at the expense of the host, and they can cause health problems for the host. That sounds like a parasite.
They're more akin to tumors: pulling form the body's blood supply and growing, possibly causing negative health effects.
See first statement.
Evolution of the species is a bitch.
More like nature is a bitch. Evolution is just nature's tool.
It's nature's way of telling you in a song
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong - Spirit
Of course there is. The aborted is not a fish or a palm tree.
and since it is gone, was it ever important?
A baby is a full being. Most abortions are done long before there is a nervous system. Without a nervous system, there is no being.
My mother is gone but she was important.
I guess thinking that helps you sleep at night. It is still a baby just at an early stage of development. It is not a worm or a bird or a rock. It is a baby
she actually was a real person and did things,
The way I see it, you either respect all life as God's creations equally
or you revile all non human life to the detriment of managing the planet
properly.
We only have THIS ONE planet.
If you believe in God and Creation, than rocks deserve the same respect.
Nope. Look up the medical definition of baby and get back to us.
It's a clump if cells. Analogous to a parasite or tumor.
It's simple fact. Not all of us lose sleep over facts. Nor do we delude ourselves into thinking it's something that it is not in order to sooth
Still wrong. You might want to brush up on emryology.
It's none of those.
What definition are you looking at?
At what point in pregnancy or should I say infestation?
Lol... "Baby" is not a medical term.
Analogous to a parasite or tumo
Somebody failed biology. B
Here is the scientific definition: An infant; a newborn child.
Do you understand what analogy means? The unborn attaches to it's host, feeds off the host's nutrients, grows in size, and can possibly cause negative health issues for the host. Much like a parasite or tumor does.
The scientific one.
Perhaps blastocyst or maybe implantation.
Baby is a not a "scientific" term. It's a colloquial word that, as well know, describes human both pre and post birth.
o you understand what analogy mea
Do you? Analogies make sense. The fundamental characteristic of a parasite is that it's a foreign SPECIES that invades a host. Do you understand that a human female is designed to nurture a fetus? See the difference?
I have. The ones I look at say that it is a human baby at all stages of development from conception.
Then you're looking at the wrong ones. It's not a baby until birth. That's the newborn stage. Before birth, it's a fetus. An embryo before that.
Did you ever consider that you are looking at the wrong ones? That is what I think.
I look towards scientific definitions for such things rather than generic sources or terminology. Zygote, Embryo, fetus, infant, ect are specific terms with specific definitions. They are not equivalent or interchangeable.
Yes each one of the terms are equivalent. They all are terms used to describe a stage in the development of a HUMAN BABY when used in talking about the subject we are discussing. Each and every one contains the necessary thing to make a human. Not a fish or a cow and not a puppy dog. Try and prove me wrong v
No, they are demonstrably not!
No, they are used to describe gestation. It is not a "baby" until after birth. You're using "baby" in the colloquial sense of the term. But it is not accurate.
But it's not yet a "human" as an individual person until birth.
Strawman. No one said it would be a fish or cow. Nether is that the issue. You're wrong in your terminology.
Nope I am not.
Yes, you definitely are!
she is not truly free
No one is truly free.
Why is it other people's business if a woman gets an abortion? That has not been explained
Some people believe that the zygote deserves legal protection.
They're morons.
Well obviously, zygotes haven't learned as much as you have, but they aren't morons.
Why? Especially if such protection comes at the expense of the woman's legal rights and autonomy?
Isn’t that what SCOTUS is trying to decide?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Removed for context
They're the morons
It's not up to them - those who want to overturn women's legal rights' - those lying men and that one lying bitch are the ones trying to take those rights away.
Of course you're agreeing with the one who is insulting me.
The SCOTUS already decided women have legal rights and autonomy. The SCOTUS is contemplating taking those rights away. Therein lies the problem. There is no good argument to confer legal protections to the unborn.
How about forced vasectomies for men with 2 children? That will help with men that impregnate multiple women. Oh let me guess, we can't involve ourselves in men's reproductive decisions, but we can involve ourselves in women's reproductive decisions.
For all the people that claim women call the fetus "baby" & that makes it a baby. If you are so hung up on words why do people (women) say "I am HAVING a baby" not "I HAVE a baby" and to their other children "You are GOING to be a big brother (sister)" not "You ARE a big brother (sister)"? If words mean that much to you then I guess the shit is on you.
How about we let women decide what is BEST for them & you do what is best for you.
I think men should be able to decide what's best for them. If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father should be able to decide if he wants anything to do with the child and if he does not he should be absolved from any and all financial responsibilities for it for life
If that was so, would you drop opposition to abortion? Sounds like a fair trade
But a woman cannot decide what is best for her. I got you. I see it all comes down to money for you. A woman's health means shit to you, but a man's wallet is SO FUCKING IMPORTANT.
You are so fucking transparent.
Where did the say that? Please cite the quote.
An abortion for convenience, which most of them are, is NOT a health issue for the woman. A healthy woman is not going to due because of a pregnancy
what is wrong with convenience?
Pregnancy is most definably a strain on a woman's body and usually causes lasting changes
It's definitely an extremely huge health issue for almost every woman,
their spouse especially and possibly the woman's other children.
The possible loss of income, the added expense and stress required to house, feed
and socialize another human being is all impactful on a person's health,
mentally and physically.
Your lack of empathy seems unlimited.
Those are things that all should be thought of and taken into consideration before getting pregnant. If those are significant issues than steps should be taken to avoid pregnancy. A developing human baby that has done nothing wrong and did not ask to be conceived should not be put to death for convenience sake.
I always appreciate lectures on empathy from those favoring the taking human life so long as it's convenient. It's like Bernie Madoff self righteously scolding people for not being good fiduciaries.
The rationale that would apply to the killing pretty much any kid or any other family member who causes stress to the family is just the icing on the cake.
Do you think people should quit having sex? unwanted pregnancy is a by product of a powerful natural drive.
self preservation
What a horrible comparison.
Killing an unaware unfeeling zygote or fetus to a living breathing kid.
Why does anyone have to live by your beliefs?
It's actually more than the health of the women. It's also the health of the fetus. Why should a woman be forced to carry a child who will be dead or dead within hours?
I'm borrowing this from Colbalt Blue on a different seed.
There are many ways to prevent pregnancy and still engage in sex l
And there is zero chance that you will die from a pregnancy.
You are right and what does that have to do with getting an abortion for convenience?
I have never been a fan of abortion in lieu of birth control, but birth control is not always 100% and there are many other reasons that women have to make a choice to carry a pregnancy or not, which is something that you as a man, will never fully understand.
You have zero risk in the "game",
that is the WHOLE DIFFERRENCE.
You can't suffer when some other woman gets pregnant
and have already endorsed waiving economic responsibility for the sperm
donator. You are biased by gender
and ignorance.
That's not how it works! You confuse gestation with childrearing, which are 2 separate issues. As it's only the woman getting pregnant, only she gets to decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy or not. If birth occurs, BOTH parties assume responsibility.
What difference does it make?
That is a profoundly ignorant statement! Pregnancy itself exerts a physical and psychological toll on the woman and there are many potential complications which can negatively affect the health and well being of the woman, even if she's healthy.
A naive and simplistic way of thinking. Some issues do not develop until there is a pregnancy.
So what? That too is a risk of pregnancy.
Yes, and there is no way that is 100% effective either.
Who cares if it's for convenience or not? It's not your decision, body, problem, or business!
You have no way of way of knowing that at all. I was extremely healthy and still developed pre-eclampsia. Look it up. It can cause death to the woman. Not to mention all the other health issues to women that get pregnant. You have no fucking clue anything about women & what happens to them during pregnancy - THAT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.
I don't have to quote you, but I will:
But you are against abortion where a woman decides what is best for them. Then you go on about the man's fucking wallet - so money is more important to you that women's health.
So it a new week and I will start it with my first FUCK OFF!
continuing with that theme, Men who do not support the right to abortion should not get to fuck, That is fucking obvious
What are your thoughts on an enforcement mechanism? Should their partner get to make that decision? Isn't it the woman's choice?
Women who don't want to have a baby should not get to fuck, That is fucking obvious
I love that!
I now have a condition that must be medicated every day due to pregnancy. Make that 2
We know what you're not doing arkie
I second that Veronica!
You don't know squat. [deleted]
We also know what you're not getting!
A new person should arrive with a good chance to succeed, be raised in a good situation by loving parents who want them and have the resources, situation, time and skills to raise them and give them a good childhood and the new one should be healthy and normal to start with. When these conditions are not there, termination of pregnancy should be considered.
Quality over quantity
Why a fetus inside of somone else is so important to people who have nothing in the situation?
Are these unwanted fetus worth all the trouble and problems?
Is forcing them on people worth dividing the country?
Abortion will remain legal in states where the majority agrees with you.
If it was only a simple majority, but we all know that the states have rigged the game with gerrymandering.
And using a majority on such a personal issue is using a blunt instrument.
The gerrymandering of Illinois, New York and Maryland will work to the favor of Pro Choice.
This might shock you, but I don't believe in gerrymandering, no matter the outcome.
I’m not shocked and I agree with you.
Creating a wedge issue and promoting political division is the reason abortion became an issue, when it previously had not been (when Republicans favored abortion rights). Hard-right Republicans look for wedge issues that create political division as a means of consolidating power.
The issue was created 39 years ago by SCOTUS.
What did SCOTUS do in 1983?
I’m math challenged, 49 years.
Republicans believe in choice regarding abortion as long as the choice is determined by Republican controlled legislatures and not by the people who might need abortions.
Harris is 100% correct.
The erotophobes will never be able to understand and accept that sex is normal and healthy recreation for consenting adults.
Their devotion to controlling women reminds me of the nursery rhyme I learned in the 1970s....
The shortage of baby formula is just a sneak preview of problems overpopulation will bring.
Soylent Green is people
I don't think that overpopulation caused this problem with Abbott and the FDA. Isn't the world's overpopulation problem a result of improved food production and medical care? Should we look for ways to reduce those to reduce population?
Children who's parents did not want them, for whatever reason, seem to have more problems and are more likely to do bad things. Maybe allowing abortions can prevent an a situation where the unwanted child does something really bad, maybe like shooting up a school or church. Do those against abortion think an unwanted kid is going to be raised properly? Be taught right from wrong? do they want to take that chance?
Just throwing that out for you to think about