“Innocent”
“Sorry if we cause women pain because we rushed these laws through without consulting experts. But evil baby killing must stop now, you see…it’s acceptable collateral damage if some women suffer trauma”.
Mathematically it is true.
Or were you just unaware that only like .008 out of 100 abortions pertain the the health of the fetus or mother?
That means if this is an example of a needed abortion, there were 999.2 that were not needed.
2 Likes
Says the man who claims that one can get a Masters degree from Harvard in a few weeks.
You might consider a heaping spoonful of honesty yourself.
1 Like
In some respects, that IS what some legislators did.
And yes, the evil baby killing must stop, even if you think you can diminish what it is with a sarcastic post.
1 Like
That’s not what I’m diminishing.
I’m diminishing ideologues who don’t think through the consequences of their actions, and people like you who then say “Oh that’s Ok…we can fix that later. Oops! Our bad!”
Or make nonsense posts like “Oh the states will vote those types of people out”.
The problem is…no the states won’t vote those types of people out.
And warnings were given this is what would happen BEFORE all these restrictive laws were passed…and people like you pooh poohed those warnings as “overreaction”.
Zero thought was given to the nuances surrounding abortion and women’s reproductive health when these laws were passed.
And there’s scant evidence more thought will be given to them now.
Are policies made for the exceptions or the rules?
There can be no justice if laws are absolute.
Human society and human issues are too complex and nuanced for a simplistic approach.
I missed where I said it’s OK.
Why must you lie?
Where did I say, “Oops! Our bad!” ??
Why must you lie?
In fact, I’m on record (in another thread) saying that these legislatures are going to have to include exceptions.
Take it up with someone who has patience for your lies.
I agree, but that doesn’t answer my question.
Mmmmmm.
I have heard quite a few people say the same thing. Dr’s tell them they have terrible defects, Downs, etc and the child came out just fine.
I find it disgusting that pro abortionist seek out things that are long shots and rare to try and “justify” abortion on demand.
2 Likes
I’m sure there are some who are using these exceptions to justify abortion on demand, but in this thread, it’s being pointed out the state legislatures like Louisiana’s went too far the other way, even after they were warned that things like what we are seeing in this thread would happen.
And when warned, they blew those warnings off and said “You’re overreacting”.
And some here are blithely blowing that pain off by saying “oh well they can move, or travel to a state where abortion is legal”.
Instead of saying “hey… this is wrong”.
And you are really going to put a number on a person’s suffering. “Eh it’s only 1% of cases…acceptable collateral damage”?
1 Like
And there’s a problem with a catch-all exception. “Medically futile” was a term used early in the thread. That’s the term that such a clause would have to use, short of creating a multi-page list of specific exceptions. And then people will use that clause to argue all sorts of conditions would be covered. It’s how Iceland pretends to claim that they’ve practically eliminated Down Syndrome. They haven’t, of course. They just eliminate any preborn individuals who might have it.
And even with the spectre of that sort of abuse, I don’t see a way that they can NOT move forward without such a clause. And that includes any state, no matter how red it might be. (The absence of such an exception clause was a big factor in the defeat of the recent amendment in Kansas, for example.) No question it would be subject to abuse, but the larger upshot is that the majority of abortions would be prevented.
OP Link
Davis told WAFB-9 that her pregnancy has been impacted by a condition known as acrania. It is not explicitly mentioned on the Department of Health’s list, although that list does include a broad exception for other types of anomalies—as long as two physicians deem that anomaly valid.
5 Likes
Laws are made for the exceptions. 99% of people don’t murder. 98% don’t steal. Etc.
We will see, you know a lot of businesses and other states will treat them as pariahs if they do keep them right?
The easiest way to have done this was to include as an exception “threatening to the health of the mother/fetus or there exist conditions that will make the fetus non-viable…as determined by a physician (or physicians if you feel a second opinion must be gotten).
You try and put a list of conditions that are exempted from the abortion ban…you are automatically going to miss some or create a gray area that gives doctors pause.
Which it was warmed would happen, and the warnings were pooh poohed.
But because the ideologues feel they have to stop the “unethical” doctors from making up a condition, and don’t trust them to do what they are paid to do, they went down this path…which causes needless pain.
1 Like
Oh, so another ten year old flees Ohio to have an abortion she could have had in Ohio story.
1 Like
Interesting analogy, given the topic.
Do you make a policy for abortions because of a birth defect that occurs in 4 in 10,000 (or 1 in 20,000 depending on the source) live births?
Or can it be handled as the exception it is?
1 Like
