It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[Effete]

I see nothing wrong with returning the favor of burning, looting, and murder on those woke who were so devoted to using violence as a means to achieve a political end not that long ago.

Not that long ago, and they seem like they're about ready to work themselves up to doing it again.

Yep!

Cold weather is gone. Time to crawl out of grandma's basement and change the world.
VIVA LA CHIKEN NUGGIES

[Pat]

A heartbeat is an objective metric. You either have one or you don't. That's a good place to start when crafting a bill.

Why? It's a purely arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the issue in question. A heartbeat isn't a characteristic that defines a human. It's a minimal criteria for independent survival, at least in most cases, but so is air, or a functioning endocrine system.

[fixable]

The problem isn't with the concept of abortion. The problem is with how "safe, legal, and rare" has turned into "even though it looks like a little human I'm going to bury my head in the sand and call it fetal tissue so I don't have to face the truth of what I'm doing; let's use abortion as a primary means of birth control so we can reward bad behavior and bad choices; let's abort up to and beyond birth; let's let children get abortions without parental knowledge; let's do as many abortions as possible so we can sell the remains for dubious research and keep the money flowing in."

It's a microcosm of the overall greed, stupidity, and laziness that Western society is rife with - partly because western society has no real hardship anymore for most people and partly because regulatory governmental agencies would have to actually investigate.  In the extreme case of Kermit Gosnell, the PA dept of health chose to not stop him - they simply wanted to not know what was going on so they didn't have to act and it took an investigation into potential drug dealing by him that a light was shined on his little shop of horrors...  https://www.globalblackhistory.com/liberal-racism-the-case-of-dr-kermit-gosnell/

So that's where we're at - we've allowed the abortion industry to proceed so far beyond what was reasonable (let alone legal), that we *need* the pendulum to swing as far back in the opposite direction as possible...

And Gosnell isn't an isolated case... https://www.newsweek.com/dc-abortion-pictures-reveal-uncomfortable-truths-opinion-1698021

This makes sense to me.  I've always been willing to compromise at "safe, legal and rare" but like you said, we've gone so far past that now.

There is always going to be another exception people try to put up as an excuse.  Rape and incest.  Health and lives of the child/mother.  Mental health of the mother is one of the newer ones.  The truth is though, most abortions are excuses for not wanting to deal with the consequences of the actions.

Maybe there is newer data, but a study updated in 2016 found

"claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies."

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Even reputable and competent medical authorities are unduly influenced...  When my wife was pregnant with our oldest, she was 34, so it was recommended that she see an OB/GYN experienced with higher-risk pregnancy.  He asked if she wanted genetic testing and we agreed (not that it would change any decisions, but we wanted to be prepared if we were going to have a child with any health issues).  The results of testing came in and we were told that the baby has a "higher risk" of Trisomy-18 (a condition which is "incompatible with life" according to the nurse who called with the results and reculcomended we come in to discuss things or to do an amniocentesis). The *first* thing we were told when we got there and getting counseled by a "genetic counselor" who was not an MD or RN before doing the amniocentesis was that we could go and get an abortion in Ohio because my wife was too far along to do it in NJ.  My wife was terrified, of course. I asked to speak with her OB/GYN and directly asked him to quantify what the "higher risk" looked like.  His response was that her risk increased from a sub-1% chance to about a 6% chance, based upon previous case outcomes.  Amniocentesis results clearly showed that the boy was fine (other than trying to grab the needle as the doc was trying to extract fluid from the placenta, and now that he is a teen, generally being a typical teenage asshole).

Non-medically-trained staff seem overeager in all cases to recommend abortion as your first option.  How many women (younger, naive, not married/partnered with a logical rather than emotional partner) have gotten the abortion without actually understanding the risk or going the extra step to confirm the risk?

Yes - many people would, if the amniocentesis showed conclusively that the baby would be still born, die soon after birth, or be incapable of anything more than a vegetative state, get an abortion.  But how many would have had healthy babies instead of killing them if they had been made aware of what the risks actually are as opposed to "higher risk" without quantifying it?

We had something similar in our first. It was a potential genetic disorder for our child based on genetic testing. It was a result of screening that shows a potential. For us it was Turner syndrome. An amniocentesis showed negative and everything worked out fine. We never once got any pressure to have an abortion. Trisomy-18 sounds much worse and definitely something that would be debilitating. I'm glad it turned out negative for you.

But I don't know... you really don't have the authority to just make a blanket judgement that other women aren't capable of understanding the situation. You're making a lot of unnecessary assumptions. The suggestion that abortion is an option and one that should be considered isn't the same thing as mandating one. It sounds like a failure of your medical institution and it is likely that that does happen. But does that necessarily warrant a blanket ban on abortion? Wouldn't it be more effective and efficient to go after malpractice?

If a car mechanic fails to properly install brakes in a vehicle and that causes an accident, you don't go and ban all car mechanics or ban all brakes.

[fixable]

A heartbeat is an objective metric. You either have one or you don't. That's a good place to start when crafting a bill.

Why? It's a purely arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the issue in question. A heartbeat isn't a characteristic that defines a human. It's a minimal criteria for independent survival, at least in most cases, but so is air, or a functioning endocrine system.

Right and at very early stages what may be determined to be a heart beat is actually just electrical pulses from the generation of a potential heart.
https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

[fixable]

If you want to see the bastards twitch, there's an interesting little cottage industry that has sprung up as imaging technology and 3-D printing improves.

They can take the imaging data from sonograms or other prenatal scanning, and print up a kind of bas-relief 3-D image of an unborn child. We've come a long way since those crude, staticky sonogram images.

Sometimes, technology is fucking awesome.

If there is some benefit of diagnosis of potential issues then that's cool, but from your tone it sounds like this isn't for any actual medical purposes and is just for 'fun'. I don't see the benefit of 3d printing a fetus over what can be already discerned from sonogram. So, why would anyone do this?

[fixable]

Republican or right winger? Those terms are not interchangeable. Except to a liar.

I'm curious... where is your distinction?

For me... I consider Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, the sorely missed John McCain to be Republican. I consider trump and greene, boberts, McConnell and gaetz to be right wingers.

[Effete]

A heartbeat is an objective metric. You either have one or you don't. That's a good place to start when crafting a bill.

Why? It's a purely arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the issue in question. A heartbeat isn't a characteristic that defines a human. It's a minimal criteria for independent survival, at least in most cases, but so is air, or a functioning endocrine system.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but my point is it's an objective criteria. As opposed to something like when thoughts begin. I'd rather no one had an abortion, but it's pointless to try to make that argument in today's society. So why not at least attempt to set some kind of legal standard? Five years ago leftists were crying "slippery slope fallacy" whenever someone brought up the possibility of late term abortions, but here are, with states drafting bills with language such as "up to and including birth." It's not a fallacy when you're sliding down the slope.

[fixable]

The core issue, to my thinking, is that we need a federal decision on what the legal status of a fetus is. Roe v Wade sidestepped this, and that's what led to it's inevitable challenging by the SCOTUS.

Sadly, the core issue has nothing to do with when human life begins.  It's about whether or not people are expected to live with the consequences of their own actions.  One does not randomly become pregnant.  And there is a large population of so-called "civilized" people (both male and female) who are willing to kill their own children in the womb to escape the consequences of sex.  At that point, there's very little hope that those people will ever seek understanding or compromise...

While I agree that their core issue is to evade the responsability of their own actions the point at where it's alive is relevant since they love to argue it's not life or a human life.

Problem: Unwanted pregnancy.

Solutions:
1.- Don't have sex (alternatively anal/oral sex doesn't get you pregnant)
2.- Contraceptives
3.- Plan B
4.- Give it in adoption.
5.- Put on your big girl panties and pay the piper

That's really unfair. You act like women go on and get pregnant and have abortions like their trading pokemon cards. Like women get abortions to score points like in video games.

You have no idea and you have no empathy.

[yancy]

That's really unfair. You act like women go on and get pregnant and have abortions like their trading pokemon cards. Like women get abortions to score points like in video games.

You have no idea and you have no empathy.

Well no empathy, sure, but your kind aren't deserving of empathy, and neither are the women who use abortion as contraception, nor the ones doing all the irrational shrieking right now, over the vague prospect that the federal government *might* no longer be able to enforce a decree that exists just to affirm some bizarre notion that you aren't all evil monsters.

As for the idea, it's this, my fag:

HEY HEY, HO HO, ROE V WADE HAS GOT TO GO!

Do you like that idea? There's a fair chance that you might have to start getting used to it.

[fixable]

A heartbeat is an objective metric. You either have one or you don't. That's a good place to start when crafting a bill.

Why? It's a purely arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the issue in question. A heartbeat isn't a characteristic that defines a human. It's a minimal criteria for independent survival, at least in most cases, but so is air, or a functioning endocrine system.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but my point is it's an objective criteria. As opposed to something like when thoughts begin. I'd rather no one had an abortion, but it's pointless to try to make that argument in today's society. So why not at least attempt to set some kind of legal standard? Five years ago leftists were crying "slippery slope fallacy" whenever someone brought up the possibility of late term abortions, but here are, with states drafting bills with language such as "up to and including birth." It's not a fallacy when you're sliding down the slope.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/27/fact-check-do-democrats-support-abortion-up-until-and-after-birth/984338007/

This explains the "up to and including birth".

There isn't a slippery slope. It's possible to define a fair and acceptable point where abortion is no longer legal. It certainly shouldn't be anything close to what is proposed now... hell the 6 week nonsense is moronic. Most women don't even know they're pregnant then. It is absurd... to the point of actively punishing women.

[fixable]

That's really unfair. You act like women go on and get pregnant and have abortions like their trading pokemon cards. Like women get abortions to score points like in video games.

You have no idea and you have no empathy.

Well no empathy, sure, but your kind aren't deserving of empathy, and neither are the women who use abortion as contraception, nor the ones doing all the irrational shrieking right now, over the vague prospect that the federal government *might* no longer be able to enforce a decree that exists just to affirm some bizarre notion that you aren't all evil monsters.

As for the idea, it's this, my fag:



Do you like that idea? There's a fair chance that you might have to start getting used to it.

My kind? You mean someone who has empathy for other human beings (including women) who don't treat them like some evil beings. Like why? Why do you believe this? I really don't understand. I mean why not just live and let live?  What gets you so angry what someone else does? Why limit someone else's freedoms when there is no harm to you?

I don't get this at all.

[Pat]

A heartbeat is an objective metric. You either have one or you don't. That's a good place to start when crafting a bill.

Why? It's a purely arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the issue in question. A heartbeat isn't a characteristic that defines a human. It's a minimal criteria for independent survival, at least in most cases, but so is air, or a functioning endocrine system.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but my point is it's an objective criteria. As opposed to something like when thoughts begin. I'd rather no one had an abortion, but it's pointless to try to make that argument in today's society. So why not at least attempt to set some kind of legal standard? Five years ago leftists were crying "slippery slope fallacy" whenever someone brought up the possibility of late term abortions, but here are, with states drafting bills with language such as "up to and including birth." It's not a fallacy when you're sliding down the slope.

So is X weeks.

And I guess you're too young to remember the partial birth abortion ban.

[Effete]

That's really unfair. You act like women go on and get pregnant and have abortions like their trading pokemon cards. Like women get abortions to score points like in video games.

You have no idea and you have no empathy.

Except, to be fair, some actually do. Granted it's an extremely small number, but they tend to very vocal (and proud) of having 10 or 20+ abortions. I'm not saying we should use the most extreme cases to argue the point, but he fact that people DO use it as,an alternative to sensible birth control is not doing anyone any favors. It's the same thing you see for pushing gun control. "OMG, there's one crazy irresponsible nut! Let's ban all guns for everyone!" It's a kneejerk reaction that lacks nuance and completely misses any point.

[yancy]

We'll win. Sorry. You will lose.

Well you personally won't win, of course, but that's got nothing to do with Roe V. Wade being overturned, that's just the cards you were dealt at birth. Sadly the universal legality of abortion did not help in one case where it very easily could have

I guess I'll chalk that up as another argument for overturning it.

[fixable]

That's really unfair. You act like women go on and get pregnant and have abortions like their trading pokemon cards. Like women get abortions to score points like in video games.

You have no idea and you have no empathy.

Except, to be fair, some actually do. Granted it's an extremely small number, but they tend to very vocal (and proud) of having 10 or 20+ abortions. I'm not saying we should use the most extreme cases to argue the point, but he fact that people DO use it as,an alternative to sensible birth control is not doing anyone any favors. It's the same thing you see for pushing gun control. "OMG, there's one crazy irresponsible nut! Let's ban all guns for everyone!" It's a kneejerk reaction that lacks nuance and completely misses any point.

Lol, so ban abortions for everyone just because there is maybe people who are proud of having abortions??? Are  you insane? How many women do you think go around and get abortions for the trophies? Tell me... Do you actually believe this is something that warrants a full ban on abortions for ALL women???

You are literally using the most extreme cases to argue your point. Come on do better.

You compare this to gun control... WTF? A woman having an abortion does not cause violent death of multiple human beings. There really isn't a comparison. By the way, I'm not against gun ownership at all. I'm totally cool with people owning guns and I don't think the mass school shootings are because of people owning guns... they are because of a failed mental health system in our country.