Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Why? I'm not a doctor.

Why don't anti-abortionists define how much damage to a pregnant woman they feel is acceptable before they would be willing to allow an abortion? Would it have to be enough damage for them to never be able to have another kid if they continue to carry the current pregnancy? Should it be anything short of the woman lapsing into a coma? What is their definition?

Anti-abortionists are the ones who want to get involved in a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor. So why not let them define "damage."

 

So, then explain to us why you are against abortion in general if the fetus is viable outside the womb?

You seem to make some sort of distinction. What is it the distinction?

Why do you recognize the right to life of a post viability fetus as long as the mother's life/health are not in jeopardy, but revoke it if the mother expresses some concern for her mental health?

 

Not really. People are born every minute who we will never know or meet, who may be barely a blip on society.

 

Because once it's viable, it is capable of living without being inside the woman.

 

You are the one who supports the exception. How is they law written? What does it say?

 

A doctor shouldn't be expected to be a lawyer.

 

OK. Right.

So, why does the fetus then lose the right to live if the mother decides she might suffer from depression if forced to continue on with the pregnancy? We're talking about a viable human life?

 

As I have said, they don't discuss or get questioned on the issues largely because the current laws mostly align with their belief. If you see a serious push for change, you can bet your ass it will be discussed and questioned. And it seems to surprise you that people on the left have differing opinions.
Never got around to it last night and on the phone again so this will be brief, but I do not believe life begins at conception. I am firmly pro choice (and prefer that it be a rare decision) until the point that the fetus is a viable life form (23 weeks or so). Beyond that, I only support exceptions for life of the mother or serious health threats. Mental health/distress does not meet the criteria for me.

 

And, it turned out that you were shocked and horrified to learn of Cran's position. (And, now Songbird's position. And Baron's position.)

And, I'm sorry, Hillary and the rest of the Dems should not be allowed to try and score points by demonizing the right on the issue, if they aren't willing to state, and defend their own position.

An independent, impartial media would never allow it.

 

Indiana Governor Mike Pence recently signed a bonkers anti-choice bill into law that will not only hold doctors liable if a woman has an abortion because of a fetus's race, sex, or diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other disability, but also requires fetal remains to be cremated or buried, whether from an abortion or a miscarriage. Providers would likely pass the costs of these funerary services to patients. Plus, women seeking an abortion would need an ultrasound 18 hours before the procedure.

One Indiana woman recently created the Facebook page Periods for Pencewhere she encourages others to call the governor's office to report their periods, since they could technically be having a miscarriage. "I would certainly hate for any of my fellow Hoosier women to be at risk of penalty if they do not 'properly dispose' of this or report it," she says.

As the anonymous page creator told Indianapolis's WRTV: "The more I read this bill, the more vague language I found and the more loopholes, and it just seemed incredibly intrusive. So I wanted to give a voice for women who really didn’t feel like they were given any kind of input into a bill that would affect our life so much."

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/04/indiana-women-calling-governor-mike-pence-about-their-periods.html

 

Because there's a difference between trying to explain something that may not be so profound other than "because" -- which says much more than it seems -- and pro-lifers playing moral arbiter for the sake of verbal gymnastics. What is it you want to explore? What is it you want to examine? Is it a game you want to play in an attempt to twist people into knots?

 

I hope they do address this, only so we can see you claim they are lying and tell us what they really think.