Current Events > Lindsey Graham to introduce nation-wide abortion ban tomorrow

(+) Yeah! (+)

yemmy posted...

So if we upped it to 25 weeks would that be ok? (With a clear caveat that if it is gonna hurt the mother, past then is ok?)

Explain why there needs to be a government-regulated restriction at all.

CyricZ posted...

Explain why there needs to be a government-regulated restriction at all.

I don't really believe in the state intervention of anything really, Im just asking where the point of compromise is if there is any.

On the flip side, if these things "never happen" then what is the problem with banning it?

yemmy posted...

Im just asking where the point of compromise is if there is any.

You should be asking who is demanding a compromise and what they are offering.

On the flip side, if these things "never happen" then what is the problem with banning it?

You should be asking who is demanding the ban and why.

CyricZ posted...

You should be asking who is demanding a compromise and what they are offering.

You should be asking who is demanding the ban and why.

So if you knew people were having late term abortions because of non physical health related conditions, you would theoretically be ok with that?

yemmy posted...

So if you knew people were having late term abortions because of non physical health related conditions, you would theoretically be ok with that?

Yep

yemmy posted...

So if you knew people were having late term abortions because of non physical health related conditions, you would theoretically be ok with that?

Yes. Why should I care about what a woman does to her body?

yemmy posted...

So if you knew people were having late term abortions because of non physical health related conditions, you would theoretically be ok with that?

I would be confident their doctors would be advising against that given the potential for serious health complications.

But if you want it in short, yes.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's no such thing as a late term abortion. To end a pregnancy late in gestation they simply induce labor. This is generally speaking only done when the fetus is nonviable or there a risk to mother's health.

This 100%

yemmy posted...

So if you knew people were having late term abortions because of non physical health related conditions, you would theoretically be ok with that?

For somebody who "don't really believe in the state intervention of anything", you sure seem to trying hard to find things the state should intervene in...

Ruvan22 posted...

For somebody who "don't really believe in the state intervention of anything", you sure seem to trying hard to find things the state should intervene in...

I don't believe in state intervention in my life at all, but these people do, I was merely asking if they were ok with babies being aborted for non physical health reasons, because any time this is brought up, everyone just defaults to the "it never happens". Well, hypothetically(considering you don't consider it murder until after birth), if it did, would you be ok with it or would you be ok with laws against it?

I never said I was for or against any laws, I was asking what laws people would actually accept. You're making baseless assumptions (just like you do when you call me a far right winger or a trumper).

Are you against a womans right to choose to have an abortion or are you not? Forget the hypotheticals.

yemmy posted...

So you're saying that has literally never happened? A woman has never been 7 months pregnant and gotten an abortion because it wasn't affecting her physical health?

I'm saying it rarely happens and I don't give a rat's ass when it does. It is for the good of society to never force a pregnancy to term. Birth is a privilege and no one should be brought into the world if the mother doesn't want it. Children growing up in neglect, poverty, abuse, etc does not benefit society.
If someone is enduring most of a pregnancy, there's a good reason if they terminate it.

If anyone truly believes in small government, then shouldn't support any restriction on social issues.

The next thing they are going to do is enforce binary gender so people can't move away from being child bearing

yemmy posted...

I don't believe in state intervention in my life at all, but these people do, I was merely asking if they were ok with babies being aborted for non physical health reasons, because any time this is brought up, everyone just defaults to the "it never happens". Well, hypothetically(considering you don't consider it murder until after birth), if it did, would you be ok with it or would you be ok with laws against it?

I'm not sure why you used the word "babies" as it intentionally gives a different meaning than fetus (or just "abortion for non physical health reasons) - maybe you are unconsciously biased? But to answer your question, similar to Cyriz I'd be okay (but not thrilled) with late term abortions being legal.

I never said I was for or against any laws, I was asking what laws people would actually accept. You're making baseless assumptions (just like you do when you call me a far right winger or a trumper).

A few points:
A) You very clearly said you are against laws in post 102 ?
yemmy posted...

I don't really believe in the state intervention of anything really,

B) Regardless - what assumption did I make in my post? I made an observation, *not* an assumption.

C) Please point out where I called you a far right person? I *have* described you as a Trump supporter based on your posts always seeming to defend him or his actions and rarely (if ever) being critical of him. That is an assumption.

hockeybub89 posted...

If anyone truly believes in small government, then shouldn't support any restriction on social issues.

Here's the thing about this: I don't even know a libertarian out there that doesn't want murder to against the law. To be against murder being punished is 100% anarchist point of view. These people have a disagreement with you about when life begins.

And if I'm being honest I'd say a 7 month old should never be terminated if there are other options available. It wouldn't bother me in the least if that was made law. Why would it you?

Ruvan22 posted...

A few points:
A) You very clearly said you are against laws in post 102 ?

Yeah and I was addressing your assumption that I was for them. Also see post 115, murder might be one I'm against. I'm not going to argue in circles with you, goodbye again (going on ignore).

yemmy posted...

Here's the thing about this: I don't even know a libertarian out there that doesn't want murder to against the law. To be against murder being punished is 100% anarchist point of view. These people have a disagreement with you about when life begins.

And if I'm being honest I'd say a 7 month old should never be terminated if there are other options available. It wouldn't bother me in the least if that was made law. Why would it you?

Because I don't think it's murder, so I think the government should eat shit for even considering restricting it. I also think bodily autonomy is absolute. Taking it away from women is basically saying they aren't people, that their existence is meaningless.

How is it possible for people who believe it to be murder to compromise with people who don't? If I stupidly believed abortion to be murder, I certainly wouldn't compromise. But I have actual uncompromising morals.

I've said it before. I think the argument over when life begins is irrelevant. All that matters is: Does the mother want to endure 9 months of pregnancy? Will her and the fetus both survive?

If I was attached to a woman right now, she should have the option to disconnect me if it becomes too much for her. Even if I would die.

yemmy posted...

I don't even know a libertarian out there that doesn't want murder to against the law.

A libertarian is against murder because the libertarian realizes that they themselves could be murdered.

hockeybub89 posted...

I also think bodily autonomy is absolute. Taking it away from women is basically saying they aren't people, that their existence is meaningless.

This, full stop. Anyone who disagrees with the concept of absolute bodily autonomy is literally saying they are OK with women being reduce to baby factories whether they are willing to come right out and say it or not. People who want to put a time frame limit on abortion merely want to negotiate at what point the woman becomes a baby factory rather than just having it start at conception

yemmy posted...

Yeah and I was addressing your assumption that I was for them. Also see post 115, murder might be one I'm against. I'm not going to argue in circles with you, goodbye again (going on ignore).

I'm not sure you if you missed or ignored my statement? You claimed I made an assumption ... but I didn't? I didn't say "You must be against abortion" or "You must hold far right beliefs", which would be assumptions.
I appreciate you clarifying murder being a subject you'd want government regulations around.
As for arguing in circles, I and most people in the thread have answered your series of questions.. I'm not seeing the circle?

Questionmarktarius posted...

is 201th-trimester abortion even a thing?

Yes you are a complete asshole.

Some people need to abort. It's not a big deal.

There are also miscarriages.

I am a lost soul.

Creeps like him really need a soul.

Did it happen?

AtelierGaming86 posted...

Did it happen?

It's not gonna have the votes.

But what Lindsey Graham has effectively done is show the Republicans' hands way before they were ready to play