Femmeworth
Banned
He is so full of shit.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Hale-XF11
Member
Just give it a few weeks to calm down and go away and eventually Paul Ryan and his ilk will be right back to re-defining rape as they've always done. It's Politics 101. Go along with the crowd until the time is right to slip the anti-abortion rhetoric back into their talking points.
RNC Now Says Anti-Abortion Platform Doesnt Necessarily Disavow Rape Exemptions
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/rnc-abortion-platform-rape-incest.php
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/rnc-abortion-platform-rape-incest.php
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Meaning that abortion will be banned in the whole country, but liberal states might have exceptions.
Thanks GOP!
NullPointer
Member
I actually assumed as much from the get-go, not that it makes that silence any less odious.
Would it be similar to the marijuana issue then? States could pass exceptions, but the doctors/mothers could get busted by FBI right?
Fucked up position to take especially from the "states rights" and "freedom" party. Let the women choose.
I think the GOP has been that way on a lot of issues for as long as I can remember. Let the states decide
unless they make the wrong choice
Of course, that's not how it works. If the federal government in our constitution bans something, states don't get to say "well we have exceptions".
You can't have local exemptions with a constitutional ammendment. If Romney & the GOP have their way if you are a under-age female and get raped you are stuck with that kid. Good luck. Oh and by the way they want to take away all your free medical benefits so you get to pay out of your pocket for being stuck with it! Hooray for the presidential candidate of moral values.
"We'll leave it up to the states except when it's something we want, then we're not going to leave it up to the states anymore."
Dude Abides
Banned
No. And safety is not the intent.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
If there is a medical reason to use the ultrasound, then it's up to the doctor to bring it out. The GOP are not interested in the medical reason from what I've gathered bur rather they are apparently forcing the women wanting an abortion to look at the ultrasound results before doing so.
Devolution
Member
It's a state directive not a health issue or a doctor driven one to guilt trip women into keep the fetus.
Not to mention for early pregnancies you need to have a transvaginal ultrasound:
Guess where that goes?
SouthernDragon
Member
...
Was the RNC just dismissed as "some think tank"?
...
Well, who can trust Obama when he makes a statement on foreign policy, he's just some government bureaucrat.
Was the RNC just dismissed as "some think tank"?
...
Well, who can trust Obama when he makes a statement on foreign policy, he's just some government bureaucrat.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Not to mention for early pregnancies you need to have a transvaginal ultrasound:
Guess where that goes?
Are you talking about first trimester abortions? You guys keep bringing up outdated information.
"Medical methods for induced abortion have emerged over the past two decades as safe, effective, and feasible alternatives to surgery."
"All women should undergo an initial evaluation, including a medical history and a physical examination confirming gestational age. Ultrasound is necessary only if there is uncertainty about gestational age, pregnancy location or the presence of gestational trophoblastic disease. If an ultrasound is not performed, the pregnancy should be confirmed with a urine or serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Blood type and antibody status are checked and Rh immune globulin given if indicated. If a patient has an IUD, it must be removed."
Ultrasounds are not always medically necessary, and when they are, transvaginal ultrasounds are not always used. It's very specific to the patients circumstances and it should be the physician making those medical decisions... not politicians.
Yeah I don't think we disagree, I was referring to legislation that requires ultrasounds (which would be transvaginal in early stages). It's definitely intended to shame, not for any medical reason. I remember the one bit Jon Stewart did where he showed how one of the bill sponsors was opposed to TSA patdowns because they were too intrusive and yet somehow thinks a mandatory wand in the vagina isnt...
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Ah, okay. I wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at. Some other gaffer on here tried to argue that transvaginal ultrasounds are the norm for abortions, and used data compiled from a very limited study done in the 80s or 90s as proof.
Not to mention for early pregnancies you need to have a transvaginal ultrasound:
Guess where that goes?
In the transvagina, duh.
So we're still at the old impasse.. half of America wants no abortions at all (save for the exceptional circumstance, i.e. rape) and the other half wants all on demand, no questions asked abortions for all three trimesters.
My stance: sanctity of life, that fundamental principle governs how we treat everyone no matter what their station. Preserve that, keep that pristine, then we can properly consider the promotion and preservation of peace by exercising freedom. But if you (the mob) decide that life is disposable at any particular distance on the wick (at either end) how can a sense of freedom exist, i.e. when others are allowed to determine your fate, or that you and I should have access to it, when some others can't.
When you segment the population by arbitrary criteria are you not limiting freedoms? Constitutionally protected freedoms? You put a significant percentage of the population on death row for crimes not committed - for no breach of their contract as a citizen. Don't we rail against such injustice when the victims are ambulatory and have voices? How much less justice is there when the victims have no voice?
So, yeah, what's wrong with leaning towards preserving a life - even if it means creating obstacles to terminating them?
My stance: sanctity of life, that fundamental principle governs how we treat everyone no matter what their station. Preserve that, keep that pristine, then we can properly consider the promotion and preservation of peace by exercising freedom. But if you (the mob) decide that life is disposable at any particular distance on the wick (at either end) how can a sense of freedom exist, i.e. when others are allowed to determine your fate, or that you and I should have access to it, when some others can't.
When you segment the population by arbitrary criteria are you not limiting freedoms? Constitutionally protected freedoms? You put a significant percentage of the population on death row for crimes not committed - for no breach of their contract as a citizen. Don't we rail against such injustice when the victims are ambulatory and have voices? How much less justice is there when the victims have no voice?
So, yeah, what's wrong with leaning towards preserving a life - even if it means creating obstacles to terminating them?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Devolution
Member
Sanctity of life by ignoring the citizen's rights carrying the fetus. It's all the same these arguments. Ignore that it's a living, breathing, thinking woman whom you want to force to carry a fetus to term. Her priorities, who gives a fuck right?
Yeah, according to you, it'd be fine if we just aborted less than 100 babies a year. The sanctity of life only kicks in once it's over a certain number of people affected, right?
This is simply not true. Many admant pro-choicers such as myself are OK with the 3rd trimester ban. You get into viability territory, which is where many us believe that a fetus gains personhood rights.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
3rd trimester is between week 26 and 40 right?
Yeah, I'm personally only okay with no question asked abortions up to week 20-26, and only medically required abortions afterwards - which should be up to the doctor to determine, not law makers.
Yeah, I'm personally only okay with no question asked abortions up to week 20-26, and only medically required abortions afterwards - which should be up to the doctor to determine, not law makers.
Also, and I could be wrong, aren't third trimester abortions incredibly rare, only done in extreme circumstances, very dangerous for the mother, and only performed by specialty doctors in far apart locations?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Expect that number to drop even more the closer you get to the end of the third trimester.
Also, based on those numbers, 88.2% of all abortions are done prior to week 13.
This is a fetus at week 12:
Devolution
Member
Yes. It's more often than not performed to save the life of the mother because the very act of birth will have major problems.
el retorno
Member
I was talking to my mom about this this other day. Since as a male I've always wanted to know how women view these issues.
She pretty much said to her its not about abortion per se but simply a women should have control over her body, end of story. The GOP always talks about in their health care debate about the Government not getting between the Patient and their Doctor. Practice what you preach.
The 3rd trimester thing gets brought up a lot and really derails the conversation. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal in the United States (except for cases where the mother's life/health is at risk). It's a completely irrelevant area to bring up in the current debate. Arguing that 3rd trimester abortions are bad is an attempt at misdirection by pro-lifers. Additionally, you won't find a ton of people who are in favor of 3rd trimester abortions, even in the pro-choice crowd, except in the case of the mother's health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Can someone explain this to me. Why in the hell would be a good idea right now? People who are staunchly against abortion are not going to vote for Obama anyway. If anything this is going to polarize the parties any more. Seems like a serious misstep to me. Don't they need the moderates here?
el retorno
Member
That's what they want, its what gets them wins. The GOP is about the base and making sure the other side stays home.
What percentage of registered GOP voters are staunchly against abortion?
How many Republicans agree with Todd Akin on abortion?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/22/how-many-republicans-agree-with-todd-akin-on-abortion/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/22/how-many-republicans-agree-with-todd-akin-on-abortion/
Overall, 63 percent of Republicans think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases according to a new poll from the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Drilling down further, a quarter of Republicans take the absolute position that it should always be illegal. (The question did not lay out precisely what the exceptions would be, but generally they are rape, incest and the life of the mother.)
The new Post-Kaiser poll identifies five distinct groups of Republicans based on a variety of opinions on social and political issues, including attitudes on the abortion question. These five groups vary widely on making abortion illegal in all cases, ranging from a high of 53 percent to a low of 1 percent.
The group that takes the most hard-line stance is the pro-government conservatives. Over half think abortion should be illegal in all cases. Interestingly, this group is not only defined by its views on social issues like abortion, but by its willingness to allow a role for government in public life. These voters are the most religious of the Republican groups. The problem for Aiken is that this GOP cluster is the smallest of any of the groups, accounting for just 12 percent of all Republicans.
Two of the larger Republicans groups the tea party movement Republicans and religious values voters also stake out very conservative positions on abortion. Accounting for almost half of all Republicans, they lean more toward making abortion illegal in most cases, but just about three in 10 say it should be illegal in all cases.
The remaining two Republican groups have much more liberal views on abortion. Some 15 percent of window shoppers say it should be illegal in all cases. (This group makes up 17 percent of all Republicans; it is the youngest group and its values and policy views tend to resemble Democrats.)
Only 1 percent of the old school Republicans take the absolute view on restricting abortion in all cases. These voters comprise 22 percent of all Republicans. They are the wealthiest of the GOP groups and take more liberal views on social issues while maintaining more conservative positions on other issues, especially economic ones. On absolutely restricting abortion, old school Republicans match the views of the two most liberal Democratic groups.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm surprised there is such a thing as a God and government democrat.
If they are so against abortion, why haven't they gone and joined the republicans already?
If they are so against abortion, why haven't they gone and joined the republicans already?
Simply put, Democrats do not wish to force women to get abortions. However, Republicans do wish to force rape victims to carry and deliver the rapist's child.
Because they don't want to be associated with Republicans?
In what instances is it necessary for a woman to terminate a pregnancy other than risk to her own life?
1st warning: these comments will just piss you off if you're pro-choice/abortion.
You know this one: there are plenty of people who are eager to adopt, to take someone else's unwanted child and raise it as their own. I personally have a hope that my first child will be an adoption.
Bringing up the impact of a full term pregancy on someone's lifestyle? Maybe delaying when they go to college - do what else? What is so important that can't wait 9 months (again, if the safety of the mother is not in question)? We all know what life is about on a day to day basis. We spend more time wasting it than using it for any great accomplishment. And how does being pregnant get in the way of that any way? I work side-by-side with proud, intelligent, pregnant women all the time.
You could try to invoke the constitution (as I have) and suggest that we cannot deny someone the right to life, liberty and happiness (I hope I don't have to point out the double standard) - but isn't that what the mother has already claimed in becoming pregnant? And we are all asked to endure consequences, to be responsible for our actions in much less dire circumstances. Why does this situation get special treatment - and why must unborn lives be placed on the chopping block, front and center, on the platform to push for/preserve women's rights?
2nd warning/disclosure: I am a cell biologist (PhD researcher at a major university) so the "when does life begin" debate wont get me to conceded anything in favor of the other side. I chose to pursue this career because I was exposed to the friggin miracle and still to be explained wonders of life. It is constantly surprising me. The level of complexity, the fragility of it and yet how balanced it is with molecular level redundancies - everything with its specific purpose but also a little extra functionality just in case some other component can't quite carry its weight.
To me, as soon as that ovum starts dividing, it's well on its way to becoming a complete human being. Sure, if the embryo doesn't attach well to the uterus it gets rejected, and there are a number of reasons why a mother will reject her fetus (resulting in miscarriages). Between 20-30% of pregancies result in miscarriages. That's because the body can determine if the fetus has severe chromosomal or genetic abnormalities. Our own bodies are already determining if these babies are fit for a good quality of life. Anything beyond that is a matter of convenience on our part - not part of an evolutionary process to weed out the weak from the strong - its an exercise/imposition of the will over those without the means to protect themselves.
And isn't that our jobs? as human beings? the animal - not the soul. Aren't we supposed to protect our offspring? I hope I can't be blamed for that sentiment as opposed to the complicit slaughter/harvest of cell masses that oddly possess the shape of a human baby.
Plus, you're catching me at the worst possible time. A friend of mine and his wife are fighting to keep their newborn baby alive. And I'm wracking my brain to come up with a solution for them.
1st warning: these comments will just piss you off if you're pro-choice/abortion.
You know this one: there are plenty of people who are eager to adopt, to take someone else's unwanted child and raise it as their own. I personally have a hope that my first child will be an adoption.
Bringing up the impact of a full term pregancy on someone's lifestyle? Maybe delaying when they go to college - do what else? What is so important that can't wait 9 months (again, if the safety of the mother is not in question)? We all know what life is about on a day to day basis. We spend more time wasting it than using it for any great accomplishment. And how does being pregnant get in the way of that any way? I work side-by-side with proud, intelligent, pregnant women all the time.
You could try to invoke the constitution (as I have) and suggest that we cannot deny someone the right to life, liberty and happiness (I hope I don't have to point out the double standard) - but isn't that what the mother has already claimed in becoming pregnant? And we are all asked to endure consequences, to be responsible for our actions in much less dire circumstances. Why does this situation get special treatment - and why must unborn lives be placed on the chopping block, front and center, on the platform to push for/preserve women's rights?
2nd warning/disclosure: I am a cell biologist (PhD researcher at a major university) so the "when does life begin" debate wont get me to conceded anything in favor of the other side. I chose to pursue this career because I was exposed to the friggin miracle and still to be explained wonders of life. It is constantly surprising me. The level of complexity, the fragility of it and yet how balanced it is with molecular level redundancies - everything with its specific purpose but also a little extra functionality just in case some other component can't quite carry its weight.
To me, as soon as that ovum starts dividing, it's well on its way to becoming a complete human being. Sure, if the embryo doesn't attach well to the uterus it gets rejected, and there are a number of reasons why a mother will reject her fetus (resulting in miscarriages). Between 20-30% of pregancies result in miscarriages. That's because the body can determine if the fetus has severe chromosomal or genetic abnormalities. Our own bodies are already determining if these babies are fit for a good quality of life. Anything beyond that is a matter of convenience on our part - not part of an evolutionary process to weed out the weak from the strong - its an exercise/imposition of the will over those without the means to protect themselves.
And isn't that our jobs? as human beings? the animal - not the soul. Aren't we supposed to protect our offspring? I hope I can't be blamed for that sentiment as opposed to the complicit slaughter/harvest of cell masses that oddly possess the shape of a human baby.
Plus, you're catching me at the worst possible time. A friend of mine and his wife are fighting to keep their newborn baby alive. And I'm wracking my brain to come up with a solution for them.
Brian Griffin
Member
The fact that they support forcing ANY woman to carry and deliver ANY child is fucking disgusting in my opinion. Motherhood is not something that should be forced on any woman who doesn't want it.
And in case anyone is thinking "but fatherhood can for forced on men", I think that's also wrong and there should be a way for men to opt out, but that's an entirely different thread.
When she decides she doesn't want to carry a baby.
My wife is currently pregnant and it is NOT easy. It's the hardest thing she has ever done. Her feet are swollen all the time, she has gained around 40lbs, she can't sleep well, she's always tired, she gets sick for no reason, she has to pee every 10 min, the baby is constantly kicking all of her organs and ribs, etc. And all this is fucking NORMAL. Stop acting like pregnancy is just some thing you have to deal with like a goddamn leg cramp. It fucking sucks!!
Psychotext
Member
Plenty of kids waiting to be adopted too. Just because there's supply on both sides doesn't mean that they match up ideally. You could just as easily bring a child into the world who will be moving from facility to facility or ending up in a foster home.
Carry a what?
Devolution
Member
There are not PLENTY of people willing to adopt. That's a fucking farce. I'll deal with the rest later.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Fetuses aren't persons.
Inbefore 20-pages of abortion debate.
Really, Iceman, you might as well stop with these posts. People who are already against abortions being legal are already agreeing with you, people who are not against abortions being legal will not accept your basic premises.
When the fetus isn't viable and doesn't self abort.
At what point does a woman will herself to ovulate?
I guess that's why there's tons of kids waiting to be adopted.
Brian Griffin
Member
When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy.
- Status