Whether it presently is or not, what is presently not the case is a law which would mandates trying to save the life when future science can do it much earlier in the pregnancy.

From my readings and NOT any expertise, my understanding is that survival is possible but rare as early as 22-23 weeks, up to 26 weeks is still a low survival rate, and then it rapidly increases after that. Abortions being permitted beyond 22-24 weeks without an excellent medical reason is not common; I don't even know if there is anyone that will do this, legitimately at least. In other words, by the time life becomes viable, abortions are only happening when they have to. I would assume as part of this assessment, a premature birth would be a doctor's first choice, and abortion would only be when the weighing of mother's and baby's outcomes comes out in favour of it.

Does this sound like a fair assessment to you, and if so, what problem are you trying to solve? Sincere question. And is a law the way to do it?

Hmm...as I finish typing this, it finally occurs to me that we're into something of a derail here. I guess I'll leave it and mods can decide if this needs to move.

I don't know any of these specifics. My only real point is that woman who choose to get an abortion should not be allowed to choose a procedure that will kill the fetus when there is a safe alternative that gives it a chance to live even if in the future that is a lot earlier than 22 weeks.

Stop at "women...should not be allowed". Just always stop there.

Why?

You do realise that as sci/tech advances that's going to get increasingly close to the moment of conception. And then before that.

Probably because the same people that defend an unborn baby's right to life don't care about that baby's life once it's born.

This culture war fodder will dominate the US for decades to come.






The other cases Blackburn cited included a ruling on eminent domain and the Affordable Care Act. In a social media post last week, Blackburn called for "constitutionalists" who believe "the Constitution is THE standard, and its meaning does not change over time."

cite








Sen. Mitch McConnell said a national abortion ban would be 'possible' if Roe v. Wade is overturned

Is this a bit? Are we all not saying “women” anymore?

I can think of plenty of things that women should not be allowed to do.

Chopping men's penises off for example.

Did you read my post #1873?

If the Supreme Court throws already settled decisions back to the states, some states may ban gay marriage or maybe even contraception. So why do some liberals choose to look stupid by throwing in mixed race marriages or even Brown vs Board of Education as decisions that are also in jeopardy in some states? Some people think that exaggerating an argument to the point of being delusional strengthens that argument. I strongly disagree because I believe that there are lots of people who will distrust the reasonable argument once they hear the unreasonable argument the same people are putting forward.

While the above characterization is certainly true of some, it is not true for many of us who oppose abortion.

Maybe you got that nonsense idea from one of Cuepee's George Carlin memes.

Nah, Sklansky has always been really terrible with language. That's way, way less important to him than talking about his SAT math score from a test he took in 1968.

Only by showing skills in STEM can one demonstrate one's intelligence. It is known.

People are worried about mixed marriages and contraception because those constitutional rights were legally created by the courts in the 60-70s using the concept of an unenumerated "right to privacy" found inherent in the concepts of the bill of rights. Just as there is no right to abortion as per the Alito reasoning, there in no right to be married, gay or otherwise either. No one trusts him when he says the other cases relying on the right of privacy are not under attack or will not be attacked in the future because they are throwing out a constitutional right after 50 years because a right to an abortion is not written out in the Constitution therefore it was wrongly decided. If you apply the Dobbs reasoning, no other unenumerated right is safe when the Court uses the strict constructionist method. It's a slippery slope issue.

Other than saying you care, what do you do to support those babies/parents?

You clearly don't understand the Carlin meme! Maybe QP will break it down for you. Again.

Many of us at my church give financial support to and donate baby-items (diapers, baby food, etc.) to a pregnancy resource clinic here in Orange County. The clinic also provides some free healthcare services to pregnant women and women who have recently given birth.

My church also has a "benevolent fund" to help the needy.

On the other end of the age spectrum, we have visitation out-reaches to several old-folks homes in the community. (Those outreaches were shut down by Covid, but that ministry will soon resume.). I am a part of the Visitation Outreach team that brings church services to the old folks.

The problem isn't that some church folk and charitable organizations chose to do some service work and help the needy.

The problem is this is a fight between two political parties and one of them will do something (although not all that much) to help the people that capitalism leaves behind and one will do nothing at all and institute a fascist style rule while not representing large swaths of the population.

I'm going to ask a serious question, have you ever heard of anyone being forced to have an abortion by enforcing some sort of law ?

Because if not, Christians really don't need to die on this hill.
You can let the two worldly political parties fight it out and keep your nose to your mission. Of course you'd have to figure out what your mission is first. Maybe sending more old people into old folk homes......

So you donate to your church and your church gives a sliver to the underserved community? That's good. Maybe your church can set up some tents for the homeless on its property. That would definitely be benevolent.

What do you do outside of your church? Are you in favor of welfare for single mothers? Do you help babysit so mom can work a third job to get off welfare? Have you personally gotten involved with a mother directly?

I knew a church going couple that found a 19-year-old that was contemplating abortion. They convinced her to have the child and give it to them for adoption. They showed up to all the ultrasound appointments, etc.

Apparently their joy was contagious and the expecting mother told the agency she wanted to keep the baby. All of a sudden their tone shifted huge and some ugly things were said. In any case, they got what they wanted and she caved and the infertile couple got a daughter they couldn't have themselves.

As for the proselytizing to dying people, I'll leave that for another day.

You get an answer that indicates he does some good stuff and you say he doesn't do enough and bash him for it because you have a church/pregnancy anecdote? What a pos you are.

Susan Collins has made it crystal clear that if the SC ruling comes down ending RvW, she will forward legislation to codify RvW and Planned Parenthood V Casey.


I have said this many times, that this issue is one where I think the Dem's could get enough GOP support to get an exception to the Filibuster vote to put in place very narrow legislation to set in place National Abortion rights or they can let some in the GOP forward narrow legislation that the Dem's could then support.

My view is the Dem's skewer it either way. The Dem's only truly care about most issues as far as they are good for generating turnout and helping them win elections and hold power. All the rest and pretense they care is just theatre. They are fine gambling and losing and seeing RvW fall and women in a much worse position. Just as Justice RBG's pretense she cared about her legacy was theatre and she was absolutely willing to gamble it all, to hold power to the very bitter end.

Does anyone believe that if Susan Collins came forward with enough GOp votes to "codify" Roe, that the Dem's would not find a way to sabotage that? Most likely way by adding in some things to the legislation that the GOP will just not act upon.

Oh don't worry, they are working on killing the government teat too. Then it will just be letting them die in the streets.

I directly answered your question. The bolded pretty much demonstrates that you're just trolling.

He's obviously trolling at this point.

Having said that, I would not call him a "pos." He is made in the image of God, just like all of us.