Rand Paul has explained why he voted against the Bill.
It is full of unrelated bullshit that should not get passed. The direct aid, yes, but the other stuff kills the deal and I agree.
Can you give a few examples of said bullshit?
I've heard his concern is that the spending of the money won't be monitored by the inspector general and that it could be misspent. You make it sound like the funding includes specific items. I hadn't heard about those...so please share.
I propose that we create vigilante groups of medical professionals that, if we see someone smoking cigarettes, we grab it out of their mouth put them in jail. Because we value life and they're just killing themselves. They shouldn't be allowed!
I propose that we create vigilante groups of medical professionals that, if we see someone smoking cigarettes, we grab it out of their mouth put them in jail. Because we value life and they're just killing themselves. They shouldn't be allowed!
Go ahead and advocate your beliefs if you like but leave the decision to the woman involved.
I propose that we create vigilante groups of medical professionals that, if we see someone smoking cigarettes, we grab it out of their mouth put them in jail. Because we value life and they're just killing themselves. They shouldn't be allowed!
Grandstanding "Christian" politicians can stay the fuck in their lane; let them define their church's doctrine or something.
Right-wing Christians tend to be absolutists and that's a problem for them when dealing with things like conception and growth of a fetus into something that would be viable outside a woman's body. Even birth is an issue - is palliative care for a severely deformed baby instead of trying to somehow treat it considered murder? So once they decide that the line at birth is not the start of human life, then there is a messy continuum that leads to the only thing they think of as absolute, which is fertilisation. Sure there are other development markers like implantation or the start of regular electrical pulses that they falsely call fetal heartbeat. But those pesky gray area events were really just invoked as a bait and switch to get to the current position.
So yeah, they should butt out. Go ahead and advocate your beliefs if you like but leave the decision to the woman involved.
"The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at â¤13 weeksâ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14â20 weeksâ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at â¥21 weeksâ gestation."
There's also strong evidence that women obtaining second-trimester abortions are younger, less educated, poorer, and less able to schedule medical services.
"According to "Who Has Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States?," by Rachel K. Jones and Lawrence B. Finer of the Guttmacher Institute, certain groups of women are overrepresented among second-trimester abortion patients. These groups include women with lower educational levels, black women and women who have experienced multiple disruptive events in the last year, such as unemployment or separating from a partner."
I don't think that late abortions, or abortions as a means of routine birth control, are okay. BUT I do think that it's the decision of the woman and medical delivery system. Legislators have no business trying to codify what good medical care is; they're not well informed or impartial enough.
There are large medical organizations external and internal to health care systems that define malpractice; they should be the gatekeepers here. Do they think that someone gave horrible improper medical care (late term viable abortion)? Then they make that call and refer appropriately to the authorities.
Grandstanding "Christian" politicians can stay the fuck in their lane; let them define their church's doctrine or something.
"The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at â¤13 weeksâ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14â20 weeksâ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at â¥21 weeksâ gestation."
There's also strong evidence that women obtaining second-trimester abortions are younger, less educated, poorer, and less able to schedule medical services.
"According to "Who Has Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States?," by Rachel K. Jones and Lawrence B. Finer of the Guttmacher Institute, certain groups of women are overrepresented among second-trimester abortion patients. These groups include women with lower educational levels, black women and women who have experienced multiple disruptive events in the last year, such as unemployment or separating from a partner."
I dunno, but as long as you and your party push for unrestricted abortion with all of the other options and the universal education in schools going on regarding sex, where is the need for abortion without limits ? Justify it.
I don't think that late abortions, or abortions as a means of routine birth control, are okay. BUT I do think that it's the decision of the woman and medical delivery system. Legislators have no business trying to codify what good medical care is; they're not well informed or impartial enough.
There are large medical organizations external and internal to health care systems that define malpractice; they should be the gatekeepers here. Do they think that someone gave horrible improper medical care (late term viable abortion)? Then they make that call and refer appropriately to the authorities.
Grandstanding "Christian" politicians can stay the fuck in their lane; let them define their church's doctrine or something.
sorry, the Act I referred to in my previous post is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I quoted a Wikipedia article in my post. Here's the link to the article:
Kurt's question is not a deep paradox. Rowe v. Wade and the Fetal Homicide Act are in partial conflict, in part because the latter is an attempt by legislation to expand the acceptance of the notion that a fetus—perhaps even an embryo—is a human being. The Act does not rely on Roe v. Wade for its definition of life or the beginning of life.
From Wikipedia:
"The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child". "
Note from the excerpt above that the Act does not challenge the legality of abortion as allowed by other laws. As I see it, the Act is an attempt to increase the punishment of the killer for the sake of satisfying vengeful emotion over the death of a pregnant woman. It's also an attempt to convert public perception of a fetus or embryo into a full-blown child.
That attempt at conversion is at the heart of the anti-abortion movement. People stating that life begins at the moment of conception fail to accept that a fertilized egg or an embryo or a pre-viability fetus is not a life. It is a potential life.
That potential increases as the pregnancy progresses. The majority of pregnancies abort on their own, often without the woman's knowledge. I don't see how one can claim that the moment of conception categorically marks the beginning of a life when there is such a high rate of failure in the early stages of a pregnancy.
Claiming that life begins at the moment of conception fails to take the biology of human reproduction into account. That claim is almost like a fairy tale in its avoidance of hard science.
Also, opposing all abortions strips the woman in question of the right to control her body and her life. That position grants a blastomere full rights over the woman and reduces her to a passive host, without need for her free will or ability to think. That position reduces women into servitude.
A woman puts her body, her health and her life at risk when she becomes pregnant. Contraception is not fail-safe so women become pregnant despite their best efforts. Indeed, an estimated 25% of women in the USA have had an abortion. Women must haves the right to terminate a pregnancy before the point of viability, especially when one considers that our society expects women to be the primary caregiver to babies yet fails to give them sufficient support for affordable pre-natal and post-natal care.
Amazing how so many Republican/Trump followers knee jerk response of "but I'm in favor of exceptions in the case of Rape or Incest," to absolve themselves of a cruel reality in most anti abortion states: 11 States now have trigger laws that ban abortion without exceptions for Rape or Incest.
Others insist a victim file a Police Report before receiving any abortion care. Ectopic Pregnancies require an abortion for the woman to live.
Septic Uterus requires an abortion for the woman to live.
An incomplete miscarriage requires a D&C for the woman to live.
Recently in Ireland, a young woman of 26 was hemorrhaging in her first trimester. Hospitals and the Law prevented her from getting an "abortion." She literally died. Ireland soon passed rights to abortion. But here in the States, with 400,000 Foster care kids in Texas alone, 11 States have decided women will die. Literally die in hospital corridors from doctors too scared to administer a needed procedure to save her life. Split micro-hairs on Selective Morality and Value of Life anyone? Oooo, let's see what Squirrels you will point out to divert from my point...
Those three examples of medical reasons for an abortion make complete sense to me. ANY medical reason where the health of the woman is at risk is a reasonable justification for an abortion as far as I am concerned. These are not abortions done purely as a means for birth control.
We are not Ireland. I remember the abortion ships that used to anchor offshore of Ireland. Anyone else ? So what are the states that have laws that ban abortions based on these medical needs and other similar circumstances ?
I was 20 when Roe v. Wade was decided. I am fully aware of all of the circumstances involved. I remember when The Pill was released in the 60's and all of the furor that came with it, not to mention the Sexual Revolution that it helped to facilitate.
It is my understanding that over 2/3rds of the country approves of abortions with some restrictions or limits, including the allowance for rape and incest. The problem is that the democratic party and I assume you as well, wants unrestricted abortions up to and including partial birth abortions as well as in the case of the previous governor of Virginia who is also an MD, infanticide by allowing the decision to terminate up to 24 hours after birth. And as just another means of birth control, no different from a condom, the life being aborted means nothing. And you all wonder why there is pushback ? Really ?
A reversal of R v W does not end abortion, it sends the decision back to the states where the Constitution since health and medical needs of any kind are addressed in the Constitution.
We are going to have to start talking to each other and come up with a way to work this out with some kind of limits. It is well into the 21st Century and we are teaching sexuality beginning in Kindergarten now. We have the abortion pill, which can end it immediately.
I dunno, but as long as you and your party push for unrestricted abortion with all of the other options and the universal education in schools going on regarding sex, where is the need for abortion without limits ? Justify it.
Kurt, you don't really want to discuss, you just want to defend the tribe.
You use a rare instance (fetus dead/mother not)
as some sort of barometer to prove Pro-life folks can't make up their mind.
kurtster wrote:
.
How come if you would say, shoot a pregnant woman and kill the fetus, regardless of whether or not the woman survives, you get charged with murder of the fetus.
Once again you twist my words. So the mother and fetus both die, how does that change my question ?
It is also not rare as you try to state. There are other ways it happens in cases such as vehicular homicides.
You're the one who doesn't want to discuss the question that I asked. Fine, then say so.
Riddle me this ... How come if you would say, shoot a pregnant woman and kill the fetus, regardless of whether or not the woman survives, you get charged with murder of the fetus. But a woman can kill or abort the fetus herself and it's no big deal. How is that since a fetus is not considered a person yet ?
You didn't even mention the kicker, where a woman is shot on her way to the clinic. Is it this scenario true? Shoot a pregnant woman, get charged with two murders? Or is it mostly myth? I'd like to see how many first trimester cases were charged. At any rate, I'm sure the word "choice" is involved in the answer.
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).
