patrick.net

Goran_K says

I'm not even a big proponent of anti-abortion laws (I just don't want taxpayers being forced to fund them).

I agree 100%.

If the Right were to put in Gynecological clinics in Rich White Liberal neighborhoods, and talked venerable rich spouses into Abortions and getting their tubes tied while their husbands were at work. I bet there would be a huge uproar. Call it Planned Conservatism.

Tenpoundbass says

If the Right were to put in Gynecological clinics in Rich White Liberal neighborhoods, and talked venerable rich spouses into Abortions and getting their tubes tied while their husbands were at work. I bet there would be a huge uproar. Call it Planned Conservatism.

Regardless of where anyone falls on the abortion spectrum (I do not support abortion), I think government should be out of it completely in terms of legislating it or funding it.

But leftist want government involved in funding it, well, they got what they wanted because state governments are beginning to pass "heart beat bills" more with each passing year.

Agreed, I mainly don't want to fund them but i also think if you can't abort within the 1st trimester - esp. since plan B is readily available - you are unfit and should either never have kids - i.e. have your uterus taken out so you don't kill more - or you should have the baby (of course health reasons always excluded). This is the best compromise. The feminazi and leftoid continued fight and passed legislation in Dem states for late term abortions sickens me to my stomach. WTF is wrong with these assholes.

mell says

I mainly don't want to fund them

And yet if you think abortions should happen early if they do happen, how do you square that with the time it takes to raise the money if they aren't covered by medicaid or planned parenthood ?

ALso, if a person can't come up with the money for an abortion, how are they supposed to afford raising a child ? WE know conservatives aren't for supporting the cost of raising the child.

mell says

if you can't abort within the 1st trimeste

Goran_K says

abortion debate is so dishonest on the left

Yeah, have you seen the memes about liberals supposedly in support of killing babies, with photos of aborted fully developed fetuses from some other country ?

You really want to talk about honesty of the debate ?

Based on your graphic (which leaves out the percentage for Full Term), you have no problem making it illegal then.

marcus says

ALso, if a person can't come up with the money for an abortion, how are they supposed to afford raising a child ? WE know conservatives aren't for supporting the cost of raising the child.

There's something called Welfare, which will be replaced with HonkCare, the mandatory Bastard Factory Boarding Home that if you don't go to, you don't get aid, and therefore are abusing your child who will be taken away and you will be charged with child abuse.

HonkpilledMaster says

which leaves out the percentage for Full Term

IT's probably less than 1% since those numbers add up to 100%.

What's the point of a law for full term abortions ? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons. Nobody likes abortion, whatever TPB might try to tell us. Doctors are by definition more ethical than a blanket law that can not consider odd one in 10,000 cases.

I guess I don't have a problem, with it, but I would defer to doctors. Do they not have a problem with it ?

marcus says

Yeah, have you seen the memes about liberals supposedly in support of killing babies

Who needs to look at memes? I just look at the type of legislation Democrat politician are trying to pass, or the genesis of organizations like Planned Parenthood and their founder Margaret Sanger.

marcus says

And yet if you think abortions should happen early if they do happen, how do you square that with the time it takes to raise the money if they aren't covered by medicaid or planned parenthood ?

It's called closing your legs, or going to 7-11 to buy a $4 box of condoms (3 per box for the pre-lubricated ones).

See? This is why the leftist argument for abortion is so dishonest. It's always "Well well, what if they can't raise money to get an abortion?" like there isn't any other alternative. There are plenty of alternatives.

And if they keep making numerous mistakes (opening their legs, not using a condom, engaging in promiscuous activity), according to leftists, they should never face any consequences for making mistake after mistake. The only person that leftist want to pay for those mistakes is the one without any voice at all, the baby itself.

The truth is nearly all abortions are elective. Not rape, not life threatening circumstances, none of that.

marcus says

IT's probably less than 1% since those numbers add up to 100%.

Less than 1% of legal gun owners (let alone AR15 owners) are involved in mass shootings or murder - but that doesn't stop Liberals from wanting to change gun laws.

marcus says

You really want to talk about honesty of the debate ?

Oh please...

The pro-abortion side only deals in euphemisms like: "choice", "reproductive rights", "nothing but a clump of cells"....

The pro-abortion side never addresses the valid concerns of the pro-life side about the biological and moral status of unborn babies. Instead, they just shriek "you hate women!"

socal2 says

marcus says

IT's probably less than 1% since those numbers add up to 100%.

Less than 1% of legal gun owners (let alone AR15 owners) are involved in mass shootings or murder - but that doesn't stop Liberals from wanting to change gun laws.

Leftists: "If you don't have a uterus, you don't have an opinion on woman's bodies!"

Also Leftists: "I see no need to own a gun!!!! Ban all guns!!!! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

More Weird Leftists: "Not all women have a uterus!!!! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!"

socal2 says

"nothing but a clump of cells"....

This is honestly the worst argument they have, but the most common one they throw out.



Leftists: "ThAT iS a cLuMP of cELLsss..."

marcus says

What's the point of a law for full term abortions ?

Hispanic votes for the Right, although I may be wrong about this. I mingle with Hispanics more and more lately, and although they (2/3) vote D, they are extremely religious and family-oriented.

d6rB says

marcus says

What's the point of a law for full term abortions ?

Hispanic votes for the Right, although I may be wrong about this. I mingle with Hispanics more and more lately, and although they (2/3) vote D, they are extremely religious and family-oriented.

Hispanics are ultra conservative, but more illegal immigration comes before everything else for first and second generation Hispanics that have illegal family members which at this point is never ending.

Republican Pete Flores, backed by endorsements from Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Cruz and U.S. Senator John Cornyn, won a stunning upset victory over well-known Democrat Pete Gallego in a San Antonio special election to capture a state Senate seat. The election was to fill the remaining term of disgraced former state Senator Carlos Uresti, who resigned his seat after being convicted in federal court of eleven felony charges. This marks the first time a Hispanic Republican has been elected to the Texas Senate and the first time the Senate has had twenty-one Republican senators....

In other words, Texas Hispanics have a streak of conservatism that earlier this year prompted one national pollster in Washington to call Texas the Bible belt of Hispanics. Part of the Flores message in the San Antonio race was his pro-life position, a stance that Mackowiak believes resonates with Hispanic voters more than people realize.

d6rB says

Hispanic votes for the Right, although I may be wrong about this. I mingle with Hispanics more and more lately, and although they (2/3) vote D, they are extremely religious and family-oriented.

The shift in the black and hispanic vote helped put Ron DeSantis into office. So it's not a minor point. Blacks are extremely anti-gay, and hispanics are extremely anti-abortion.

marcus says

mell says

if you can't abort within the 1st trimeste

So then what's the problem with the laws in Missouri Or Georgia - abort earliest if you must. You made my point.

marcus says

IT's probably less than 1% since those numbers add up to 100%.

Great, so there's no reason not to ban it.

marcus says

What's the point of a law for full term abortions ? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

What’s the point of a law for murder? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

Quigley says

What’s the point of a law for murder? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

Homicides are so infrequent, why ban them at all? Most people die from heart disease, cancer, or pneumonia at an advanced age. Why bother punishing homicide?

Quigley says

What’s the point of a law for murder? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

We're talking about a procedure that a doctor believes appropriate. IF you handcuff doctors from doing that, you put them in a rough position where in a one in 10,000 situation, they have to decide between committing a crime that they could go to prison for life for, versus killing the mother, or perhaps causing highly likely brain damage to the baby versus aborting, or other specific obscure situations that the doctor and mother should be allowed to decide on without the government sticking their nose in to say some opitions are not on the table, even if they are the best decision.

You have to know you're in the wrong on this.

marcus says

We're talking about a procedure that a doctor believes appropriate

As Goran noted in above, the vast majority of abortions are elective surgeries, for financial or personal reasons, not medical ones.

Medical science is pretty advanced, and there's almost no reason a baby has to be aborted for medical reasons. Far less than a fraction of 1%.

HonkpilledMaster says

marcus says

We're talking about a procedure that a doctor believes appropriate

As Goran noted in above, the vast majority of abortions are elective surgeries, for financial or personal reasons, not medical ones.

Medical science is pretty advanced, and there's almost no reason a baby has to be aborted for medical reasons. Far less than a fraction of 1%.

First versus second and third trimester abortions are starkly different. Up to the second trimester, you're talking about (sometimes undifferentiated) cells in a lump no bigger than a grape. Second trimester and beyond, things start to take a dramatically more human shape.

Maybe the real debate here is one of timing. When do cells become a person?

I'd wager somewhere around second trimester (month 3ish). Also, you'd probably realize that you were pregnant before month 3, right? I mean, unless you already had some condition that was suppressing menses? or were oblivious somehow to missed cycles? or on hard drugs?

Quigley says

marcus says

What's the point of a law for full term abortions ? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

What’s the point of a law for murder? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

Game. Set. Match.

marcus says

Quigley says

What’s the point of a law for murder? If someone is doing it, they must have reasons.

We're talking about a procedure that a doctor believes appropriate. IF you handcuff doctors from doing that, you put them in a rough position where in a one in 10,000 situation, they have to decide between committing a crime that they could go to prison for life for, versus killing the mother, or perhaps causing highly likely brain damage to the baby versus aborting, or other specific obscure situations that the doctor and mother should be allowed to decide on without the government sticking their nose in to say some opitions are not on the table, even if they are the best decision.

You have to know you're in the wrong on this

When 99% of abortions are elective wtf does the doctor have to do with the decision? You are arguing for literally miniscule edge cases and pretending that is the reason abortions exists. Be truthful.

Nearly all abortions are done out of social or economic convenience. True or false?

If you answer that honestly then you can admit Quigley is not the one wrong on this topic.

marcus says

You have to know you're in the wrong on this

And statistics show that in the grand majority of abortions, there is no medical reason for them to be done. That’s millions of kids that will never be born because ... meh!
And medical necessity is pretty rare, pretty much confined to ectopic pregnancy or cancer that necessitates immediate treatment that would kill the baby anyway. So leave that window open for medical necessity, and let the heartless have them done up to say 10 weeks. After that, the woman has made a choice to carry the baby this far, might as well finish it up.

I know I’m in the right about this. I believe abortion to be nearly always morally wrong, and think the law should step in once the fetus is a viable baby to protect the baby’s body since they can’t make a choice.

cmdrdataleak says

First versus second and third trimester abortions are starkly different. Up to the second trimester, you're talking about (sometimes undifferentiated) cells in a lump no bigger than a grape. Second trimester and beyond, things start to take a dramatically more human shape.

Maybe the real debate here is one of timing. When do cells become a person?

I'd wager somewhere around second trimester (month 3ish). Also, you'd probably realize that you were pregnant before month 3, right? I mean, unless you already had some condition that was suppressing menses? or were oblivious somehow to missed cycles? or on hard drugs?

Yes, on all these. I was referring to 3rd trimester abortions and didn't clarify that.

16-20 weeks is the cutoff for me.

Of course, then we'll get from Death Cult Feminazis into more extreme miniscule examples like the ones you stated... "Oh what if somebody is very obese and has this rare condition and didn't notice their pregnancy..." that applies is .003% of cases nonsense.

cmdrdataleak says

Maybe the real debate here is one of timing. When do cells become a person?

I'd wager somewhere around second trimester (month 3ish). Also, you'd probably realize that you were pregnant before month 3, right? I mean, unless you already had some condition that was suppressing menses? or were oblivious somehow to missed cycles? or on hard drugs?

The pro-abortion crowd can't even have that discussion..........because then they lose the whole plot of it just being about the "Women's body" and admit that there is a second life to consider.

This is why the abortion debate is so dishonest and stupid in America. This grizzly practice is hidden behind euphemisms of "choice" and "reproductive rights".

Some argue that you can abort until viability. But newborn babies are not "viable" without constant food and protection from adults. In most states you would be arrested if you abandoned a new born baby. Yet you can legally rip it limb from limb if the baby is hidden from view and still in the womb a few hours before birth.

As expected, the Illinois Senate voted 34-20 on Friday to pass a bill that is even more extreme than New York's infanticide law. The "Reproductive Health Act" repeals the state's ban on partial-birth abortion, allowing abortions through nine months, and requires insurance companies to provide coverage.

Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker who has campaigned to make Illinois the most progressive state in the country for abortion hugged and congratulated supporters of the bill on the Senate floor after the vote. Pritzker has vowed to sign it into law.

As CBN News reported, the bill known as the "Reproductive Health Act" is more extreme than the bill passed in New York earlier this year and would make Illinois "an abortion destination" for the entire country. Abortions would be allowed for any reason and at any time during pregnancy.

Among other provisions, the amended bill requires private health insurance companies that cover pregnancy-related benefits to cover abortions – even late-term abortions.

There are no abortion coverage exemptions for churches, religious nonprofits, or pro-life individuals and small business owners.

The bill even strikes current law that protects parents from having to pay for a child's abortion when performed without parental consent.

Democrat state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, the bill's sponsor, said, "This is treating abortion care like any other health care."


https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/june/illinois-passes-abortion-bill-more-extreme-than-new-yorks

HonkpilledMaster says

There are no abortion coverage exemptions for churches, religious nonprofits, or pro-life individuals and small business owners.

The real solution to this particular problem is to not have the problem in the first place: People should buy their own health care or health maintenance as they see fit; employers should be merely concerned with paying salaries for work performed. It's not like only workers need insurance or that if you quit your job you suddenly have no need for insurance.

marcus says

We're talking about a procedure that a doctor believes appropriate.

You've heard of Michael Jackson, no?

HonkpilledMaster says

marcus says

We're talking about a procedure that a doctor believes appropriate

As Goran noted in above, the vast majority of abortions are elective surgeries, for financial or personal reasons, not medical ones.

Medical science is pretty advanced, and there's almost no reason a baby has to be aborted for medical reasons. Far less than a fraction of 1%

Wtf ?

We were talking about outlawing full term abortions which yes are also a fraction of 1%. By your reasoning, something that very rarely needs to be done, will none the less be illegal when it does need to be done.




Quigley says

I believe abortion to be nearly always morally wrong, and think the law should step in once the fetus is a viable baby to protect the baby’s body since they can’t make a choice.

You're getting on your high horse about something nobody is advocating. I don't think anyone is outright pro-abortion, let alone pro late term abortion. EVeryone knows there is an moral issue there.

If you outlaw late term abortions without exceptions you are likely causing more problems than you are preventing.

It must be nice to be so god like that you know when a human life become a life.

Is it essentially murder for a healthy, wealthy and attractive male to decide not to have children ?

Certainly there are plenty of woman that would gladly have children with such a guy. And plenty of souls lined up.

IT must be murder for such a guy to not have children, becasue clearly he could have many per year. And why limit it to one woman ? THat's a silly convention. Those souls are lined up wanting to become human. He's a selfish murderer if he's not spreading his seed in the most productive way possible.

IF a mans behavior and choices mean that humans that would have otherwise come in to existence, do not come in to existence, it's obviously murder.

Even preventing rape is attempted murder.

marcus says

Even preventing rape is attempted murder.

Are you commiting genocide in your mothers basement?

marcus says

It must be nice to be so god like that you know when a human life become a life.

Is it essentially murder for a healthy, wealthy and attractive male to decide not to have children ?

Certainly there are plenty of woman that would gladly have children with such a guy.

IT must be murder for such a guy to not have children, becasue clearly he could have many per year. And why limit it to one woman ? THat's a silly convention. Those souls are lined up wanting to become human. He's a selfish murderer if he's not spreading his seed in the most productive way possible.

Seriously? Not getting a girl pregnant is the same as an abortion? When your argument is falling off a cliff, you might as well grab at straws.

I don't think anyone is outright pro-abortion, let alone pro late term abortion.

If that were true, there would not be so much resistance to having adoption counselors at "women's health" centers.

marcus says

We were talking about outlawing full term abortions which yes are also a fraction of 1%. By your reasoning, something that very rarely needs to be done, will none the less be illegal when it does need to be done.

It's more than 1% - even if you use 1%, we are talking about nearly 10,000 babies being ripped apart limb from limb every fucking year in the US. Babies that are more viable and more developed than my oldest child who was born premature and is completely happy and healthy today.

All you gun grabbers argue that it is worth regressive regulations if it can just save one life - right?