I traditionally have a thread heading to the election, here we go.
Get out the popcorn for this one.
Quote
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to formally announce next week he is running for president in 2024, NBC News reported Thursday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
The governor's official entry into the Republican primary field will put him head-to-head with former President Donald Trump, the party's current frontrunner for the nomination. Trump has already spent months treating DeSantis as his primary campaign rival, thrashing him with torrents of criticism over his gubernatorial record, his political skills and his personality.
Abortions ARE medical interventions. Trump specifically spoke about abortions up to and after the birth and it wasn't even the first time, for pity sake. You can't explain that away. There's nothing to clarify other than why you are trying to make excuses for Trump's lies with ridiculous clarifications?
It's no fallacy when women's lives and health are literally at risk because of the abortion restrictions currently in place.
Yes. I have family and old friends who attended the events of January 6th. Yes, I know people in Michigan, some are immigrants from Palestine and Lebanon, and they shared what they witnessed at a local school board meeting with me. Yes, I have a transgendered grandchild.
I've also worked closely with recent immigrants and refugees and I have family members who immigrated from the USSR (Belarus and Ukraine) before the fall of the Society Union.
It's really cool how exposure to other people and cultures and ideas and other experiences leads to learning new information. It helps us to find common ground, common goals and common good.
The people of France and England just rejected the type of right wing authoritarianism that Trump is offering here. They lost big time and their right wing spokesmen weren't even a pathological liar and felon who tried to overthrow a fairly elected government.
I said. Show me republican legislation that does not allow abortions for medically indicated conditions that are a threat to a woman life or health. Or when fetal death has occured and or is imminent.
You posted a charity site trying to get donations for their cause. It doesn't specify these laws from Repliican abortion laws either.
Same with the second source. Try a better deflection.
Cool. You know allot of people. It's odd that you would chastised me for sharing my personal experience. Hypocrisy is expected.
A medical intervention is to prevent, cure and to palliative a disorder, deformity or disease. Pregnancy is not any of these.
Abortion is a medical condition if it puts the mother at risk. An elective abortion is not medically indicated as it is not a disease. Nice try tho. 😏
At which point in a health matter is it appropriate for the politicians to dictate the care?
Define late term abortion and tell us what the data specifically says about when and how often it occurs. Next we will talk about whether those are primarily elective vs necessary or medically recommended. I challenge your beliefs that there's any justification for your concern.
I'm not buying your spin.
The point in which it is appropriate for politicians to dictate care would be mandated vaccines and quarantine.
What makes you think that your situation has any relevance to the myth of the "full-term" abortion? How does one even do "full-term" or abortion "after birth" (in Trump's words). A medical team woukd have to deliver a viable baby and then kill it. Who would do that? How could it be kept a secret? Medically, a late term abortion is anything after 24 weeks. It could be 24 1/2 weeks and be late.term. Geez, what nonsense that you are some kind of hero for delivering a 32 weeker. What woman wouldn't do anything to save a baby that they'd been carrying for 32 weeks? Do you think so badly of women?
I didn't say anything about "killing after birth" or before birth.
Any termination after the second trimester would only be done in order to save the mother and the baby. There for this does not fit in with the super scarry republican abortion law handmaid's tail fallacy that republicans/Trump are trying to take away women's health rights. My primary point. My personal experience was to solidify that what I had woukd not be restricted by republican abortion laws.
Appeal to emotion fallacy. "Do you think so badly about women"?
It's illogical to consider that a woman would never or rarely get an abortion later in pregnancy for anything other than her health. She loved that baby for 32 weeks.; When women murder their babies and children all the time. Most do not, but there's laws against it.
I don't think they think badly of women but that they care so much for children. If there is even one child that is murdered by a late term abortion it's worth passing laws over. If there is one child damaged by puberty blockers, it's worth regulating. If there is one child emotionally damaged by a book about a kid having two mothers, it's worth banning. One thousand children killed by gun violence...meh.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Tweety said:
I don't think they think badly of women but that they care so much for children. If there is even one child that is murdered by a late term abortion it's worth passing laws over. If there is one child damaged by puberty blockers, it's worth regulating. If there is one child emotionally damaged by a book about a kid having two mothers, it's worth banning. One thousand children killed by gun violence...meh.
Exactly. That observation dovetails nicely with the reality that conservative states with consistent republican political leadership have sadly high child poverty rates and higher infant mortality rates as compared to the rest of the country.
I don't think they think badly of women but that they care so much for children. If there is even one child that is murdered by a late term abortion it's worth passing laws over. If there is one child damaged by puberty blockers, it's worth regulating. If there is one child emotionally damaged by a book about a kid having two mothers, it's worth banning. One thousand children killed by gun violence...meh.
All those things are important. It's common for left wing media to use the "2 moms example" where's as there may be some extreem religious parents that take objection to that book, they are not the majority.
The books in question are depictions of graphic sexual acts. These are the primary concern.
Exactly. That observation dovetails nicely with the reality that conservative states with consistent republican political leadership have sadly high child poverty rates and higher infant mortality rates as compared to the rest of the country.
And is a great deflection from providing evidence of a republican bill that would not allow medical intervention in the later stages of pregnancy. Or anything like the fantasy "Handmaid's Tale".
Exactly. That observation dovetails nicely with the reality that conservative states with consistent republican political leadership have sadly high child poverty rates and higher infant mortality rates as compared to the rest of the country.
And I have been a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) for children in our probate court for 10 years. I see what happened to these unwanted and difficult to place infants though teenagers. Now some conservatives are calling to re-consider birth control creating some king of hell that only women can enter. Crusades, this seems to be OK with you because you believe women and children should some how be punished for having sex. Imagine that you weren't 32 weeks pregnant but 6 weeks and had just finished a round of antibiotiocs that were known to be teratogenic, Do you think that you should be forced to carry that baby to term and watch it die in the delivery room? If you wanted an abortion you would have to go to another state. This is what is happening in Idaho with women with missed ab's. Doctors don't want to touch these women. RoevWade was a very King Solomon decision.
All those things are important. It's common for left wing media to use the "2 moms example" where's as there may be some extreem religious parents that take objection to that book, they are not the majority.
The books in question are depictions of graphic sexual acts. These are the primary concern.
I could be offended by the slur that I might be giving into left wing media, which I do not consume but I know you didn't mean anything so I'm not.
"The Family Book" by a children's author was removed for a line "some families have two moms or two dads". The book "My Two Dads" has been removed from libraries. The classic book "Heather Has Two Mommies" 30 years after publican was removed from libraries recently and probably is one of the most banned books ever about the topic. I could go on I'm sure.
While it may not be the primary concern it's out there, so it was the example I chose. I certainly wasn't going to say "let one child be traumatized by explicit gay sex....". I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of book banning because we've already had many discussions about it.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
And is a great deflection from providing evidence of a republican bill that would not allow medical intervention in the later stages of pregnancy. Or anything like the fantasy "Handmaid's Tale".
The current events news across the country are reporting on real time examples of the republican abortion laws endangering the lives of women. You can deny that there are serious consequences associated with these anti abortion laws but you would simply once again be wrong.
Maybe you haven't read that book, Handmaid's Tale, it seems like you haven't any real idea what the book is about.
Crusades said:
All those things are important. It's common for left wing media to use the "2 moms example" where's as there may be some extreem religious parents that take objection to that book, they are not the majority.
The books in question are depictions of graphic sexual acts. These are the primary concern.
Nah... we already debunked that claim that the bans are all about graphic sex. Nice try, though.
And I have been a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) for children in our probate court for 10 years. I see what happened to these unwanted and difficult to place infants though teenagers. Now some conservatives are calling to re-consider birth control creating some king of hell that only women can enter. Crusades, this seems to be OK with you because you believe women and children should some how be punished for having sex. Imagine that you weren't 32 weeks pregnant but 6 weeks and had just finished a round of antibiotiocs that were known to be teratogenic, Do you think that you should be forced to carry that baby to term and watch it die in the delivery room? If you wanted an abortion you would have to go to another state. This is what is happening in Idaho with women with missed ab's. Doctors don't want to touch these women. RoevWade was a very King Solomon decision.
You seem to have completely missed all points.
I never said women should not get abortions or there should be laws against it. Nor did I say I'm against abortion either. So your antibiotic strawman is irrelevant.
No republican bill suggests restricting birth control. That's ridiculous.
Aside from a few politically motivated Dr's, there is no substantial evidence to suggest the Dr's are "afraid to provide care to women" due to imaginary abortions laws. The Dr that do are most likely trying to add to the "taking away women's healthcare" hysteria that the left media causes. Unless you have some exact evidence that's to the contrary. It's just left hysteria.
Yes. Out of state abortions may need to occure. However without Roe, states can now increase the term limit beyond 16 weeks. Making some states less restrictive. That's good no?
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,903 Posts
This is evocative of the Handmaid's Tale.