That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Really? Just as environmental reviews aren't a hindrance to development?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:55 pmThen it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.
Are you advocating getting rid of environmental reviews?Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:58 pmReally? Just as environmental reviews aren't a hindrance to development?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:55 pmThen it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.
But we're talking about a (near) total ban because some place somewhere at sometime aborted a late stage pregnancy without going to jail. If you want to discuss abortion as a general topic go right ahead I guess, but this particular segment of the thread was kicked off because Georgia and Kentucky are competing to see how draconian they can make their abortion laws. You need to convince them that moderation is key before you convince me.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 11:46 am Or we could have some rules around it like BAC or speed limits.
This is the exact opposite of your view on laws covering just about anything else. Why make an unnecessary law?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:55 pm Then it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.
From what I understand, there's more of an agenda behind all these dozens of new abortion laws that states are pushing. They know that these laws are going to court and most likely getting declared unconstitutional. The ultimate goal is to get at least one of these cases in front of the Supreme Court, where (thanks to Trump and McConnell) there's a very good chance of it being used to override Roe v. Wade.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:34 pmthis particular segment of the thread was kicked off because Georgia and Kentucky are competing to see how draconian they can make their abortion laws.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 11:46 am Or we could have some rules around it like BAC or speed limits.
Perhaps we should improve education and services available to women so that they make better decisions and avoid the need/desire for one.
Yes, but not failures to have strict enough abortion laws. They are failures in sex education, access to birth control and access to affordable maternal care. There is a link between preventing abortion and perpetuating poverty... I am not clear on how perpetuating poverty helps anyone, but I have ideas.Montag wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:50 pm So statistics:
In 2015 per CDC 638,169 abortions at a rate of 188 per 1,000 live births.
1.2% means ~7650 late term abortions.
In 2015 13,286 people killed by firearms, excluding suicide. Suicide would be a large number - in 2010 it was 19,392 - so say 20,000.
Wiki on gun violence in the US - sources BBC article and CDC.
My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.
And yet one side is actively pulling the other way.Montag wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:56 pmAbsolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.
Both sides are.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:57 pmAnd yet one side is actively pulling the other way.Montag wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:56 pmAbsolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.
Seems like both parties could agree on the desire for that last phrase.We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
No doubt, which is why I don't trust the Republican party on the issue. If they really cared about preventing abortion, they'd prevent as many conceptions as possible.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 3:17 pm Your Dem quote is from the first paragraph. Here's the second:
Seems like both parties could agree on the desire for that last phrase.We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
But instead Republicans are trying their best to kill the program.The steep drop in teen pregnancies and abortions in Colorado since 2009 is mainly due to one thing: free, low-cost access to IUDs.
Intrauterine devices — tiny, T-shaped pieces of plastic placed in the uterus — are the main reason Colorado’s teen birth rate fell 54 percent and the teen abortion rate declined 64 percent in the last eight years, state health officials said Thursday.
The astounding numbers, capturing the eight-year period since IUDs became an affordable option for low-income health clinics, were released along with a study estimating the state avoided paying nearly $70 million for labor and delivery, well-baby check-ups, food stamps and child-care assistance because of fewer births to teen moms.
How do you figure? What percentage of those are societal failure? What number would be a society success? This sort of blanket statement (which is overly simplistic and inaccurate) is exactly why politicians need to stay out of the relationship between patients and their doctors.
It depends on the state. They just did in New York.
...but that's not the context of the quote chain you're commenting on here.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 3:11 pmBoth sides are.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:57 pmAnd yet one side is actively pulling the other way.Montag wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:56 pmAbsolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.
Wrong.
Your interpretation of that line says more about you and your biases than the Democratic platform to be honest.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 4:40 pm Wrong.
Democratic platform: "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."
There's no mention of a doctor or health. It's a blanket statement to oppose any law that impedes access without a timetable.
You can spin it all you want, but it's black and white.
Is this like literally meaning figuratively?Sepiche wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 4:59 pmYour interpretation of that line says more about you and your biases than the Democratic platform to be honest.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 4:40 pm Wrong.
Democratic platform: "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."
There's no mention of a doctor or health. It's a blanket statement to oppose any law that impedes access without a timetable.
You can spin it all you want, but it's black and white.
Opposing codifying abortion restrictions into law is not the opposite of no abortions for anyone, by law. The Democrat and Republican stances are not opposite extremes.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:14 pm
Is this like literally meaning figuratively?
Impede doesn't mean impede?
"We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:16 pmOpposing codifying abortion restrictions into law is not the opposite of no abortions for anyone, by law. The Democrat and Republican stances are not opposite extremes.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:14 pm
Is this like literally meaning figuratively?
Impede doesn't mean impede?
Then maybe they should adhere to the policy and stop trying to move it to, "five minutes, and we get to watch."noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:19 pm The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.
I think it's pretty clear I don't trust nor agree with their policy. Legal medical services shouldn't be excluded from funding.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:24 pmThen maybe they should adhere to the policy and stop trying to move it to, "five minutes, and we get to watch."noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:19 pm The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.
It is pretty clear. What is not clear to me at the moment is what your actual stance is.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:29 pmI think it's pretty clear I don't trust nor agree with their policy. Legal medical services shouldn't be excluded from funding.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:24 pmThen maybe they should adhere to the policy and stop trying to move it to, "five minutes, and we get to watch."noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:19 pm The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.
When the fetus is viable outside of the mother. Since at that point it's called "birth".noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:36 pm Here, let's do it this way.
You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.
So you want to tilt at a windmill that's not even remotely within the realm of possibility for the foreseeable future? Seems grounds for a productive discussion.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:36 pm Here, let's do it this way.
You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:36 pm Here, let's do it this way.
You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:51 amCompare/Contrast the percentage of guns that are used in murders.Holman wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:52 pm Right now the boogeyman scenario used to defend earlier and earlier abortion restrictions is "in some states a woman can abort a baby right up until the moment of delivery!!" The logic seems to be that because this is legal somewhere, it just makes sense to make it illegal closer and closer to conception.
But does this ever actually happen? Even in a place where it is legal to abort just prior to delivery (and I don't know if any exist), do healthy women with healthy babies actually carry almost to term and then decide to abort? I'm guessing no.
According to Planned Parenthood and the CDC, only 1.2% of abortions occur at or after 21 weeks (the halfway point of gestation). It's likely that most of these are due to discovery of serious health problems with the fetus or the mother.
I'd be very interested to learn the rates at which healthy mothers with a healthy fetus facing no serious trauma decide to abort very late. Such cases are probably so rare as to be statistically invisible, but apparently they're driving national policy.
When dealing with things that should be illegal, you're likely going to find a small percentage of the population that would engage in that kind of behavior.
We aren't talking about what 999/1000 people would do. We're talking about 1 in 1000 or less.
This is a strawman because it assumes the law needs to be involved at all.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 5:36 pm Here, let's do it this way.
You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.
You would have received similar from the Republican Party before The Gingrich Purge of RINOs. Only the Republicans have the Doctrinal Orthodoxy that leads to Tyranny.noxiousdog wrote:It's interesting to see all the different answers.
So far we have two for always, one for third trimester, and two for it doesn't matter.
And no, Isgrimmur, I was looking for clarification.
The measure would be the strictest abortion ban in the U.S. Lawmakers rejected an amendment 21-11 that would have created exemptions for rape or incest — provisions typically included in anti-abortion legislation. The bill, called the Human Life Protection Act, includes an exemption if a woman were to seek an abortion because her pregnancy threatens her health, and it wouldn't punish women for having an abortion.
If Ivey, a Republican, signs the bill into law, then it's likely to be immediately stopped by a federal judge because it violates Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion across the U.S. Still, it is one of several measures that red states are passing to try to force the justices to take up the issue under the court's more conservative makeup.