Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you are taking away their bodily autonomy, you are enslaving them. No one is taking away bodily autonomy from deadbeat fathers. Your effort to deflect and minimize this also duly noted.

No woman in the US has their bodily autonomy taken away. They can all get abortions in the US. Most also have bodily autonomy not to get pregnant in the first place, just like a man.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Doctors' hands are being tied by state laws when it comes to practicing medicine in this regard..

Not in all states. People have to travel to get medical procedures done all the time. My wife had to travel 400 miles to get a surgery she needed. All women have the freedom to get an abortion in the US, that has not changed. You want abortion to be a special medical case.

What restrictions do you support on abortion?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Universal healthcare in the USA is a well known idea. I think you try to avoid these topics by using these tactics.

No. there are many variations of what it would look like. I am simply asking what you mean by universal healthcare. If you cannot explain it then just say so.

So you are so much into politics but have no idea how this works? Looks like you are dragging your feet. I think you are avoiding answering my question here but acting so confused about the details of how it can work. Are you not aware that most all other advanced countries have this kind of healthcare system, and they pay for it through taxation?

Are you this oblivious to this issue? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had basic understanding of this important issue. It's been discussed on RF many dozens of times over the years.

All I want to know is if you, as a person who claims to be pro-life, supports a healthcare system that all citizens have access to it without going bankrupt, thus saving lives. I would think this is a simple enough concept for you to feel compassion and support it.

Yes, and I will answer that question if I know what you are talking about which you refuse to answer.

Are you talking about a national health care system where private healthcare is not allowed? Or a voluntary healthcare system?
Are you talking about national health insurance plan where private health insurance is not allowed? Or a voluntary health insurance system?
Are you talking about an Obamacare like plan?
Are you talking for all people or for people that make below a certain amount?

Please describe what you mean by Universal Healthcare?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I was just asking for your position, and you provided it.


I see. So, you're not against ending human life, you're against "ending the growth of human life once it has started in the uterus"?


And why should this opportunity not extended to human life that is formed outside of a uterus?


I've not put forward any position, I'm just questioning yours because I want to know more about it and understand it better. It seems odd to me that you hold embryos to be "human life" with all the rights that entails, but you don't care about the millions of embryos that are destroyed every year due as a result of IVF treatment. It seems a clear contradiction in your position.

I did give my reasons. I will paste it here again:

No. My skin cells are human life but I am ok with them being killed when they die. What I am against is ending the growth of human life once it is started in the uterus. That human life should have the opportunity to become a grown human person. There has to be a demarcation on both sides of the issue that is not clear cut. When do you think abortions should not be done? 3rd month? beyond? Whatever you answer it can be challenged by your own standard.

 

[Pogo]

I did give my reasons. I will paste it here again:

No. My skin cells are human life but I am ok with them being killed when they die. What I am against is ending the growth of human life once it is started in the uterus. That human life should have the opportunity to become a grown human person. There has to be a demarcation on both sides of the issue that is not clear cut. When do you think abortions should not be done? 3rd month? beyond? Whatever you answer it can be challenged by your own standard.

The former standard of before the fetus becomes viable to live on its own seems reasonable, It allows women who don't wish to be pregnant a reasonable amount of time to make the decision and doesn't put any restrictions on women who wish to be pregnant.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The former standard of before the fetus becomes viable to live on its own seems reasonable, It allows women who don't wish to be pregnant a reasonable amount of time to make the decision and doesn't put any restrictions on women who wish to be pregnant.

Ok, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. When is that?

 

[Pogo]

Ok, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. When is that?

When is what?, The SC until recently accepted the medically evidenced conclusion of about 24 weeks gestation which is far beyond the vast majority of elective abortions without major fetal anomaly.
Have you any evidence of anyone asking for a more expansive time frame?

 

[crossfire]

Not in all states. People have to travel to get medical procedures done all the time. My wife had to travel 400 miles to get a surgery she needed. All women have the freedom to get an abortion in the US, that has not changed. You want abortion to be a special medical case.

What restrictions do you support on abortion?

Roe v Wade was quite reasonable and worked well for almost fifty years. I agree with Roe v Wade that the states can have in interest in a viable fetus. Such interest will allow the states to mete out punishment for those bribing a doctor or midwife to kill a fetus, as it might be an heir to an estate, it might be an embarrassing illegitimate child, or for whatever other reason a human might come up with.

I also agree with the protections for abortive procedures protected in Roe v Wade in pre viable fetuses, as the same procedures to induce an abortion are also the same procedures used in follow up care for a miscarriage (to save her fertility) as well as for saving a woman's life and health cause be complications during pregnancy. Having these protections nationally caused the maternal mortality rate to drop significantly, as doctors and patients were able to address these health-care concerns quickly and easily without interference from the state.

The Impact of Legal Abortion on Maternal Health: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present

From 1959 to 1980, abortion-related mortality declined by 97%, and maternal mor...

ashecon.confex.com

​

​

Abstract​

​

From 1959 to 1980, abortion-related mortality declined by 97%, and maternal mortality fell by 86%. In this study, we question whether the legalization of abortion over 1969-1973 explains a portion of this maternal mortality decline. Our results suggest that legal abortion reduced non-white maternal mortality by 30-40%, with little impact on overall or white maternal mortality. We also find that early state-level legalizations were crucial, and explain more of the observed mortality decline than the Roe v. Wade decision itself. Overall, our findings suggest that legal abortion substantially improved maternal health for disadvantaged groups.​

Without the national protection, some states have enacted such strict laws that doctors in Idaho were advising their patients who were pregnant or who were planning on getting pregnant to purchase a membership in a medical airlift transport service in case they had a complication to their pregnancy for which the treatment was outlawed in Idaho, so the patient would be airlifted out-of-state where she could receive the emergency treatment.

Loss of federal protection in Idaho spurs pregnant patients to plan for emergency air transport • Idaho Capital Sun

Some Idaho physicians are advising their pregnant patients to purchase air ambulance memberships with companies like Life Flight Network.

idahocapitalsun.com

If you want pregnant women to be able to receive medical treatment for pregnancy complications and keep the lower maternal mortality rate that accompanied Roe v Wade, you are going to have to also make elective abortions locally accessible, as they are the same procedures needed to treat pregnancy complications and miscarriages. If you are worried about the falling birth rate, the last thing you want to do is make pregnancy third-world dangerous again. Dead or infertile women can't make babies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The states have jurisdiction. The laws are a result of the people who live in them.

Exactly and the point was not to federalize it but rather give it to the states to decide which is proper.

 

[crossfire]

Exactly and the point was not to federalize it but rather give it to the states to decide which is proper.

Have you considered the13th Amendment outlawing slavery and how the "badges and incidents of slavery" could be applied to pregnant women forced to carry a pregnancy to term? Do you think the 13th Amendment should be given over to the States? The Courts gave that to Congress to decide.

Court defined "badges and incidents of slavery"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt13-S1-2/ALDE_00013210/

Type of restriction or action	Explanation
Compulsory service	Forced labor for the benefit of another person
Restrictions on movement	Limitations on where a person can go
Property and contract restrictions	Inability to own property or enter into contracts
Court and testimony restrictions	Inability to have standing in court or testify against a white person
Racial discrimination	Racial discrimination by private housing developers and private schools

 

[crossfire]

Have you considered the13th Amendment outlawing slavery and how the "badges and incidents of slavery" could be applied to pregnant women forced to carry a pregnancy to term? Do you think the 13th Amendment should be given over to the States? The Courts gave that to Congress to decide.

Court defined "badges and incidents of slavery"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt13-S1-2/ALDE_00013210/

Type of restriction or action	Explanation
Compulsory service	Forced labor for the benefit of another person
Restrictions on movement	Limitations on where a person can go
Property and contract restrictions	Inability to own property or enter into contracts
Court and testimony restrictions	Inability to have standing in court or testify against a white person
Racial discrimination	Racial discrimination by private housing developers and private schools

The Compulsory Service badge and incident would apply to abortion restrictions. The Racial Discrimination badge and incidents (in this case discrimination against pregnant persons) would apply to Hospital Emergency Rooms turning away pregnant persons in medical distress. The Restriction on Movement badge and incidents would apply to states or municipalites that try to pass laws against pregnant persons traveling to get an abortion.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly and the point was not to federalize it but rather give it to the states to decide which is proper.

It is good to allow to allow Montana and NY to set different speed limits due to terrain, but instigating laws that affect individuals according to state is actually destructive and has already resulted in poorer maternity care in states with draconian regulations.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is good to allow to allow Montana and NY to set different speed limits due to terrain, but instigating laws that affect individuals according to state is actually destructive and has already resulted in poorer maternity care in states with draconian regulations.

That's why people have choices in this country. They can go to a state more accommodating to their views.

 

[Copernicus]

No woman in the US has their bodily autonomy taken away. They can all get abortions in the US. Most also have bodily autonomy not to get pregnant in the first place, just like a man.

The issue is not whether a woman has bodily autonomy somewhere else--often quite inconvenient and expensive to get to--but whether a state government should be able to place any restrictions on bodily autonomy locally. Under Roe v Wade, women had bodily autonomy in all states. Now they do not, and you approve of that. You clearly favor eliminating the right in all states, but you are happy with the new restrictions placed on them in some states. You wish that all states would follow suit.

As for getting pregnant, it is not the same for a man as a woman. A man never has to worry about getting pregnant. A woman almost always does. And it is the woman, not the man, who must suffer the medical risks of pregnancy and raising the child that results from giving birth. A lot of men are able to shirk that responsibility without suffering any consequences. You frame it in a way that places all the blame on women for getting pregnant and none on men.

... What I am against is ending the growth of human life once it is started in the uterus. That human life should have the opportunity to become a grown human person. There has to be a demarcation on both sides of the issue that is not clear cut. When do you think abortions should not be done? 3rd month? beyond? Whatever you answer it can be challenged by your own standard.

You never seem to answer or explain why you are so concerned about cell growth and development in a womb that is not in your body and for which you have no responsibility. Why should a clump of cells in women's wombs be entitled to develop into a human fetus and be born into this world? How is it your business that those wombs should be required to produce human beings whose lives you have no personal stake in or responsibility for? Children cannot survive without support from adults, but you would still place the burden of childcare on others, regardless of whether they are prepared for, or capable of, assuming that responsibility. You won't be there to help and won't suffer any burdens as a result of the births of all those strangers. So why stick your nose into their personal choices?

 

[Pogo]

That's why people have choices in this country. They can go to a state more accommodating to their views.

That is why we are country that what state you live in does not limit your options, we use to have something called slavery where it depended on a which state you were in whether what rights you had.
I would have hoped that we had moved past that mentality, but apparently not in some cases.

 

[crossfire]

That is why we are country that what state you live in does not limit your options, we use to have something called slavery where it depended on a which state you were in whether what rights you had.
I would have hoped that we had moved past that mentality, but apparently not in some cases.

I started another thread about this here:

The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

I posted these two posts on another thread, but I think this deserves a thread of its own. Please tell me if my reasoning is faulty or has merit. Thank you. The Thirteenth Amendment of The US Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

From ProPublica:

In her final hours, Amber Nicole Thurman suffered from a grave infection that her suburban Atlanta hospital was well-equipped to treat.​

​

She’d taken abortion pills and encountered a rare complication; she had not expelled all of the fetal tissue from her body. She showed up at Piedmont Henry Hospital in need of a routine procedure to clear it from her uterus, called a dilation and curettage, or D&C.​

​

But just that summer, her state had made performing the procedure a felony, with few exceptions. Any doctor who violated the new Georgia law could be prosecuted and face up to a decade in prison.​

​

Thurman waited in pain in a hospital bed, worried about what would happen to her 6-year-old son, as doctors monitored her infection spreading, her blood pressure sinking and her organs beginning to fail.​

​

It took 20 hours for doctors to finally operate. By then, it was too late.​

Elections have consequences ...

Women are literally dying from these draconian Republican bans.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did give my reasons. I will paste it here again:

No. My skin cells are human life but I am ok with them being killed when they die. What I am against is ending the growth of human life once it is started in the uterus.

So, to be clear, is your position that a human life that is not in a uterus is fair game to be killed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is untrue. I care about the women. If I only talk about my one daughter to you do you assume I don't care about the other one? Your logic is flawed.

I say that because in your responses, you don't indicate that you do care about the women involved.
You barely even mention then as you focus on the fetuses instead.

You know you don't have to say it verbatim in order for you to come across that way, right?

It seems like the Texas did not have enough time to implement the program. Also, children can still get food if needed:

Though not as comprehensive as Summer EBT, food insecure children still have options for food assistance during the summer. Miller told the Tribune that “kids aren’t going to get fed any less” on account of the TDA’s expansion of their Summer Meals Program. Children 18 and under are eligible to receive a free meal at their meal sites across the state.

Texas passes on $450 million summer lunch program for low-income families

The USDA estimates the families of 3.8 million children could have received $120 per child to cover summer lunches if the state participated in the new $2.5 billion program launching this summer. Texas is one of 15 states opting out.

www.texastribune.org

Yeah, then they just owe a ton of debt for it and have to start a GoFundMe page for a child to get out of debt for paying for lunch. Just think about that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who is taking away medical decisions? Women can still make the decision to have an abortion in the US.

Wow. It's like you just now, right this moment showed up in this thread and haven't been participating for the previous 18 pages.
Good grief.