What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

MunoRN, RN · May 20, 2022

4 minutes ago, Beerman said:

It's not just circular, but the pro-abortion crowd also changes the goalposts. You've seen that here. Now the pillar of their argument for not having restrictions is simply they don't want to believe anyone will seek late term abortions.

Also, there isn't one universal definition or legal standard for the term "abortion". Each state statute defines it differently. Alaska's mentions "nonviable", and that in essence eliminates most late-term abortions even though they don't have a gestation age limit. Many states simply define abortion as a procedure that ends a pregnancy.

California's definition:

Abortion” means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=123464#:~:text=(a) “Abortion” means,of producing a live birth.

From California law:

California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 123468

Quote

The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if either of the following is true:

(a) The person performing the abortion is not a health care provider authorized to perform an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business and Professions Code .

(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the following are established:

(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus was viable.

(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the pregnant woman.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 20, 2022

Oklahoma passes a very restrictive ban on abortion.

Quote

The Oklahoma bill includes exceptions to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/oklahoma-legislature-passes-nations-restrictive-abortion-ban-rcna29684

This in my opinion is what pro-lifers are fighting against, not for the right to have late-term abortions for any reason.

toomuchbaloney · May 20, 2022

15 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Oklahoma passes a very restrictive ban on abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/oklahoma-legislature-passes-nations-restrictive-abortion-ban-rcna29684

This in my opinion is what pro-lifers are fighting against, not for the right to have late-term abortions for any reason.

I think that you misspoke, pro-choice advocates push against more and more restrictive laws and obstacles to abortions.

Beerman, BSN · May 20, 2022

6 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Oklahoma passes a very restrictive ban on abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/oklahoma-legislature-passes-nations-restrictive-abortion-ban-rcna29684

This in my opinion is what pro-lifers are fighting against, not for the right to have late-term abortions for any reason.

This is a different argument.

I do agree, however, they aren't fighting for late-term abortions. But, but by not wanting any restrictions, they need to face the realization that they will happen.

According to polls, most Americans realize that and do want abortions available with some restrictions. Something in between the Oklahoma law and no govt intervention what so ever. Most of us believe that at a certain point long before birth, a fetus is a human life that deserves protection. The outlier crowd is overrepresented here.

It has been very enlightening.

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

4 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The term "abortion" already includes the limits you seem to be looking for.

Abortion doesn't include killing your teenager, that's homicide not abortion, just as it doesn't include an infant that would otherwise have a viable, live birth.

The suggestion that abortion might include inducing the birth of a live baby and then killing it or vice-versa is a dishonest tactic used to get people like yourself who are otherwise pro-choice to oppose choice.

I have made no suggestion to killing a born baby. In fact something about killing babies was said before by another member, maybe you. Not sure.

I am transparent in what my beliefs are. Some on here, not so much.

Since we are making assumptions, I have half the mind to consider that there is in fact members on this thread that would consider later term abortion for convenience. Probably to keep the bad religious people and politicians out of their uterus or to protect women's right to body autonomy.... Or something.

MunoRN, RN · May 20, 2022

14 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I have made no suggestion to killing a born baby. In fact something about killing babies was said before by another member, maybe you. Not sure.

I am transparent in what my beliefs are. Some on here, not so much.

Since we are making assumptions, I have half the mind to consider that there is in fact members on this thread that would consider later term abortion for convenience. Probably to keep the bad religious people and politicians out of their uterus or to protect women's right to body autonomy.... Or something.

You, and others, seem to be using the term "late term abortion" to refer to an abortion that occurs of an otherwise viable fetus. That's not abortion, there is no subset of abortion that includes the termination of a viable fetus, that's homicide, not abortion.

Beerman, BSN · May 20, 2022

Wow. Men can get pregnant, humans who menstruate are actually "bleeders", and then a liberal actually makes a sensible post relating late term abortion to homicide. It's been quite a week. Normal is not normal anymore. I'm out for a bit.

Although I'll probably check back to see how that homicide comment is settling with the "my body, my choice" and the "mother and MD only should decide" crowds.

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/abortion-activist-tells-congress-men-can-get-pregnant-have-abortions-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-hearing-life-choice

toomuchbaloney · May 20, 2022

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

This is a different argument.

I do agree, however, they aren't fighting for late-term abortions. But, but by not wanting any restrictions, they need to face the realization that they will happen.

According to polls, most Americans realize that and do want abortions available with some restrictions. Something in between the Oklahoma law and no govt intervention what so ever. Most of us believe that at a certain point long before birth, a fetus is a human life that deserves protection.  The outlier crowd is overrepresented here.

It has been very enlightening.

The current public outcry and dialog isn't about wanting no restrictions on abortion. Ignoring the Roe precedent almost guarantees that millions of women will have no access or limited access to abortions.

Yes, most Americans want Roe to stand and the outlier argument appears to be over represented here.

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

14 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Wow. Men can get pregnant, humans who menstruate are actually "bleeders", and then a liberal actually makes a sensible post relating late term abortion to homicide. It's been quite a week. Normal is not normal anymore. I'm out for a bit.

Although I'll probably check back to see how that homicide comment is settling with the "my body, my choice" and the "mother and MD only should decide" crowds.

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/abortion-activist-tells-congress-men-can-get-pregnant-have-abortions-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-hearing-life-choice

Is it you can't say "menstratrate" because it starts with "men" so now "bleeders"? Oh dear.......

This is my prediction before I read your link..... let's see.

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

You, and others, seem to be using the term "late term abortion" to refer to an abortion that occurs of an otherwise viable fetus. That's not abortion, there is no subset of abortion that includes the termination of a viable fetus, that's homicide, not abortion.

Yes, we are using that term because it is disturbing enough that it needs to be written in an abortion law that restrictions will mean restrictions. Not vague descriptions like "health" and "reasonably determined......". .Roe does cover that. It should remain.

it doesn't help when politicians or anyone really on the choice side will not commit to some restriction because that's interfering with woman's reproductive health. Because possibly being "woke" or whatever is more important. Or others in the choice side are afraid of repercussion from their own party for daring to limit women's choice. Even if this potentially could open up to late pregnancy abortion. Doesn't really set an environment of trust does it?

I have no issue with Roe.

MunoRN, RN · May 20, 2022

1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Yes, we are using that term because it is disturbing enough that it needs to be written in an abortion law that restrictions will mean restrictions. Not vague descriptions like "health" and "reasonably determined......". .Roe does cover that. It should remain.

it doesn't help when politicians or anyone really on the choice side will not commit to some restriction because that's interfering with woman's reproductive health. Because possibly being "woke" or whatever is more important. Or others in the choice side are afraid of repercussion from their own party for daring to limit women's choice. Even if this potentially could open up to late pregnancy abortion. Doesn't really set an environment of trust does it?

I have no issue with Roe.

I would disagree that an intentionally misleading term exists to clarify something.

"Late term abortion", intended to mean a "post-viability abortion", is an oxymoron. An intervention intended to terminate a pregnancy that occurs after viability is, by definition, not an abortion.

I think one area where we very well might agree is that there needs to be a discussion about what point abortion should be allowed, and I'm not sure "viability" is the most appropriate place to draw the line, particularly given that it's a somewhat vague line.

Unfortunately that's not a conversation that is likely to occur so long as the "pro-life" crowd is successful in equating pro-choice to being in favor of using burning aborted fetuses to generate electricity (that's not a random example, the head of a pro-life organization actually argued that in front of Congress today) Catherine Glenn Foster Claims Aborted Fetuses Power D.C. (mediaite.com)

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

I would disagree that an intentionally misleading term exists to clarify something.

"Late term abortion", intended to mean a "post-viability abortion", is an oxymoron. An intervention intended to terminate a pregnancy that occurs after viability is, by definition, not an abortion.

I think one area where we very well might agree is that there needs to be a discussion about what point abortion should be allowed, and I'm not sure "viability" is the most appropriate place to draw the line, particularly given that it's a somewhat vague line.

Unfortunately that's not a conversation that is likely to occur so long as the "pro-life" crowd is successful in equating pro-choice to being in favor of using burning aborted fetuses to generate electricity (that's not a random example, the head of a pro-life organization actually argued that in front of Congress today) Catherine Glenn Foster Claims Aborted Fetuses Power D.C. (mediaite.com)

I did not intentionally use a misleading term. If I communicated it that way ,it was not on purpose.

This is another factor,the use of terms and meanings that do not always mean the same thing to everyone. I will use post viability proceedure, where as a pregnancy is terminated with the intent to discontinue the viability of the fetus/baby.

The person you mentioned above is quite clearly a radical activist. Unfortunately part of a large institution.

Just as there is radical pro abortionist that will support a woman's choice at anytime in pregnancy. This is not representative to the majority of "pro choice".

What she was referring to possibly was, as is stated in the link you posted, is that there was a program in DC to use biological waste as a power source. However she didn't clarify so who knows.

I do not think the majority of conservatives or anyone really thinks the the products of abortion are being utilized as a power source. I'm laughing just writing this.

People like this are actually a disadvantage to those who want restrictions on abortions. As they get elevated by those who want no/less restrictions and given far more attention than they deserve.

Or, simply suggesting that this type of person is somehow representative to the pro life group (this is another term that should be clarified) only establishes a ridiculous attempt to smear them.

We can agree that there should be discussion on at which point an abortion should be allowed. And this is what the politicians and everyone need's to do. It's already encouraging that you and I on this website were able to come to this concensus! We've literally have more progress than our representatives have in years!

(A humorist exaggeration but I think you get the point).