Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I care only in the legal sense, not that it has anything to do with abortion.
I didn't read the judge's opinion, nor that of the Washington Federal District Judge who, only 1 hour later, ruled opposite the Texas judge. Because of these contradictory rulings, this may head to the US Supreme Court.
The Texas judge stayed his ruling giving time for an appeal which was immediately filed.
So, now the key is whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the circuit Texas is in) will overturn his ruling.
If the 5th Circuit affirms his ruling, this will go to the US Supreme Court which will be petitioned for a stay on his ruling and likely that will be granted. However, Associate SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito is the "circuit justice" for the 5th Circuit and he may not grant the stay.
Anyway, the reason why this is important is that it has to do with a judge overriding the authority of the FDA to approve drugs.
If that stands, that is very dangerous.
Here are some examples of why:
1. I take a statin, a class of drugs used to lower cholesterol. I will be taking a statin for the rest of my life. If some judge overrules the FDA's approval of statins, then millions of people like me are at greater risk of death because we can't take our statins.
2. I have to take prescription eyedrops for the rest of my life to prevent going blind from glaucoma. If some judge overrules the FDA's approval of those drops, I will likely go blind.
3. If some judge overrules the FDA's approval of insulin, then millions will die.
Mifepristone is not some fly-by-night drug just on the market. It's been around for a generation. Anything systemically negative would have popped up by now. Nothing has.
>>> Judges should not rule on drugs any more than pharmacists should not rule on the law. Congress and the President gave the authority to the FDA to approve drugs, not the Judicial Branch.
RESPONSE TO UPDATE:
It's called "Consistent Life Ethic".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic
I don't care we killed enough
It just reminds me of those drug commercials or pharmaceutical commercials that display where are you injured or harmed by this drug you’re entitled to some money. All drugs have side effects point blank simple
If they have safer alternatives to this particular drug, then I am OK with this one not being used.
Again with the "unborn child". There is no such thing as an "unborn child". A child, infant, baby, is the result of a live birth. At the time that mifepristone is used, it's an unconscious bit of protoplasm. At least half of all pregnancies end in an unmourned spontaneous abortion. "My period was late, then it was heavy" -- that's a spontaneously aborted pregnancy.
@slatyb I reserve the right to call it what it actually is. If it makes you feel better to refer to it as something other than an unborn child in order to salve your conscience, by all means do so.
What is consciousness? You keep using that word or derivatives of it, yet you refuse to say what it is or where it is. Why is that?
Further, you have used the word "protoplasm". Uh oh - guess what: "It is the colorless material comprising the living part of a cell, including the cytoplasm, nucleus, and other organelles." Notice the word "living" used here in the definition? That means it might be "conscious". Now, what will you do?
I think it’s just kind of crazy how they are people diagnosing these women that aren’t even doctors or actual women themselves that don’t know the woman’s body. If there was an actual woman that was said these things, I think it was come across better or clearer because a lot of people tune out some thing coming from someone that doesn’t even know what goes on, or feels as if they don’t understand.
Again, I say there are side effects to every drug I think just one contraceptive not being used as it opt out the other possible abortion methods
Yes I care, because it puts my loved ones at risk, and that's unacceptable. Fucking disgraceful.
Opinion
6Opinion
yes, I don't understand what people are thinking. This is stupidity in the 3rd degree.
Why republicans can't think 2 steps ahead to realize they are going to have babies in trash cans, abused and and nedglected children of drug addictied scumb bag non parents, and many other variations of disasterous proportions... is beyond me. this is where I don't understand them, they mean well, the intent is good, but it's a bad idea.. meanwhile they will cut benefits.
Forcing morality doesn't work. Works for a few maybe.
"Why republicans can't think 2 steps ahead to realize they are going to have babies in trash cans, abused and and neglected children, and many other variations of disastrous proportions."
They can. They just don't care. What they care about is power and having others kowtowing to their rule. That and the sadistic pleasure of bringing misery on women.
@slatyb I don't think they actually think like that. I know many and some that prayed hard to end abortion. It isn't about making women suffer, but forcing people to be adults and responsible... and that, is not realistic and they should know better. People become delusional in their fervent beliefs.
It's approved for use for up to 10 weeks of gestation, so hardly a child.
"Mifepristone is also used to treat women who have suffered miscarriages and Cushing syndrome, a hormone-related condition."
Banning it will kill women.
1. It doesn't kill children, it kills a fetus that hasn't even reached the size of a melted jolly rancher.
2. That is NOT how you care for me or ANYONE with an unwanted pregnancy. If you want to help us, let US decide what is best for US, and mind your own fucking business. Don't you fucking dare pretend to care about someone whilst deliberately screwing them over by stealing their rights over their own medical and reproductive choices and violating their bodily autonomy.
I'm fairly sure that if any of you were thinking clearly you would not be advocating for the right to murder other human beings. If you do such a thing I predict later on you're going to feel really guilty about it and pretty miserable about the entire thing. It's better that you don't do this, but if you can't stop yourselves, somebody has to stop you before you actually do harm.
The stages of development of a human: Gamete, Zygote, Embryo, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Child, Preadolescent, Adolescent... A fetus is not a child. Now, make your case that a Gamete, Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus is a person. Then make your case that that person is more important than the person who is supporting their life. Is that person even pregnant before implantation?
The names aren't a function of age, but of development, in the same way nobody would say an acorn is an oak tree. For example, this is not a picture of a person.
I would be astounded if you could find a definition anywhere that says it is.
You're trying to get people to define their terms exactly, while implying, for example, that single cell could possibly be conscious. (It isn't.)
While we're at it, when an egg is fertilised artificially, does it make the egg donor or the surrogate mother pregnant? Is it an abortion if the egg is not implanted at all?
Look it up. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conscious
Which one do you think a single cell can experience, and why? Hint: it needs a brain, at least if you define it as anything more than a plant experiences.
I was pro choice but lately I am confused. I am under ihe impression it aborts the fetus very early in the pregnancy before the fetus becomes a person. I guess it is a better alternative than having an abortion the say before the woman would give birth.
Having an abortion the day before the woman would give birth never happens.
The point at which personhood occurs is the only reasonable debate to be had in this area. It should also be associated with the end of life rights of the next of kin in case of severe health problems (like a fetus developing without a brain or other essential organ).
@exitseven "the liberals want abortions right up until the date of birth. In some cases even afterwards." Of healthy fetuses? No. That's why I talked about end of life care and the rights of the next of kin in that respect. Sadly, sometimes the end of a pregnancy is also the beginning of the end of the fetus's life.
@msc545 "Women kill infants under 1 year of age all the time, and if this is not an abortion after birth, then what is it?" It's murder.
@msc545 @exitseven @slatyb @goaded I live in New Jersey, and there's literally no limit on when you can walk into a clinic and get an abortion. None. 39 weeks, 6 days? No problem. I'm not saying it happens, but just the fact that it *can* happen, is gut-wrenching. Many liberals claim that the United States should be more like Europe. Most countries in Europe have their cutoff between 12 to 14 weeks. Japan and Australia have their cutoff at 22 weeks, 6 days. There should be a federal law across the country that sets the choice limit between 12 weeks and 22 weeks, 6 days. Then each state can decide its own limit for itself between that window, so you don't have states either being unreasonably barbaric (Texas) or grotesquely inhumane (New Jersey).
@NYCQuestions1976 "39 weeks, 6 days? No problem."
No legal problem, but no doctor would perform the procedure without an damned good reason, and you know it.
At least you admit it doesn't happen.
@goaded It's probably "statistically" 0% at 39 weeks, but that doesn't mean it's "literally" 0%. Anything in the third trimester "without a damned good reason" (as you put it) is absolutely inhumane. Setting a choice limit somewhere between 12 weeks and 22 weeks, 6 days is enough time for making a decision.
@NYCQuestions1976 It's amazing. You will even disagree with yourself rather than admit I'm right about something.
@goaded Mathematics and statistics (and also HIPAA) dictate that you're probably wrong, not me. It's impossible for either of us to legitimately prove or disprove that 0 abortions have taken place in the 39th week. That's why there's a difference between statistical 0 and actual 0. I'm hedging my bet on statistical 0. If the law exists (in New Jersey or anywhere else), it's happened more than 0 times... and anything more than 0 is inhumane and unacceptable.
@NYCQuestions1976 "I'm not saying it happens", you said, now you're saying it probably does. Like I said, you'll disagree with yourself to avoid agreeing with me.
Nobody's going to perform an abortion on a imminent birth, they'll do a C-section and give the infant palliative care if it's not going to survive.
@goaded Statistically it happens 0% of the time. That doesn't mean it's happened 0 times:
www.nbcphiladelphia.com/.../
www.reuters.com/.../philadelphia-abortion-doctor-gets-three-life-sentences-for-baby-murders-idUSBRE94E0VY20130515
@NYCQuestions1976 So, one case, 10 years ago, in a different state, where the doctor was performing illegal abortions and sentenced to life without parole. That's a mighty thin end to your wedge regarding abortions at "39 weeks, 6 days? No problem."
What I said then was: "No doctor would perform the procedure without an damned good reason, and you know it."
@goaded "So, one case, 10 years ago, in a different state, where the doctor was performing illegal abortions and sentenced to life without parole."
While one case is statistically zero, it still counts, because it happened, and it's still one case too many. Do you understand how much death resulted from this "one case"? Even if it is "just this one case", it's still "one case". I suggest you really read into what this doctor was doing.
Also, if it happened in a state (Pennsylvania) where late-term abortions are illegal (23 weeks is the choice cutoff), then it can happen elsewhere. Especially in places like New Jersey,
Oregon, and all of Canada, where there is no choice cutoff. So in these places, 39 weeks, 6 days, is, by law, no matter how unlikely or improbable, "no problem".
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, one case, 10 years ago, in a different state, where the doctor was performing illegal abortions and got sentenced to life without parole means it has happened, it doesn't mean by any sane stretch of the imagination that it actually does happen on a regular basis, which is what you would like people to believe.
"39 weeks, 6 days, is, by law, no matter how unlikely or improbable, "no problem"." Is bullshit, and you know it. The "problem" is that no respectable doctor would ever perform an abortion on a fetus that's ready to be born. The fact you had to go back 10 years and to another state to find the one single example of a terrible doctor shows that there would be massive "problems" trying to get an abortion near term of a heathy fetus.
@goaded If it happened once, however improbable, it can happen again.
How many nurses have been caught overdosing their patients on purpose? A very miniscule amount, but it's horrifying enough that just about all of us remember when it happens. There's no difference here. Plus we're debating about the medical professionals that are actually CAUGHT. Who knows how many get away with evil behavior like this? Again, it's almost certainly a miniscule amount, but it sure as hell isn't absolute zero.
You want people to believe that there's no difference between 0% statistically, and absolute zero. That's why you're wrong.
@NYCQuestions1976 It could happen again, if there is ever another clinic like that one case 10 years ago, run by someone who was breaking the law and whose co-workers covered it all up.
You think it would be "no problem" to find a clinic like that? That there would be no legal consequences? That's what you're pretending is the case, and that's why you're wrong.
Far more wrong than my "No doctor would perform the procedure without an damned good reason, and you know it."
@NYCQuestions1976 As you know, I never said it wasn't, but you're continuing to associate a criminal mass murderer with genuine doctors who wouldn't even consider an abortion near term (which would be pointless, anyway, just do a caesarian and take the infant away).
You went from "I'm not saying it happens" to being sure it happens (apparently regularly and in your own state) very quickly. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it will happen. All just so you don't have to agree with me.
@NYCQuestions1976 I think you are right in this case. It will happen again, legal or not, especially if there is enough money in it for the abortionist.
@NYCQuestions1976 agreed.
@NYCQuestions1976 For the umpteenth time, I am not denying that it might conceivably happen (although whether it's legal or not will have very little impact on the likelihood, it requires a morally bankrupt doctor), but your bullshit notion that it is "no problem" for someone to get an abortion of a healthy fetus in the final days of a pregnancy in New Jersey or anywhere else. Do you understand the fallacy of the false dilemma? ↗
What really is happening is that pregnancies that go horribly wrong are being left to fester in the parent's body until they are in imminent danger of death because doctors are afraid to perform the recommended treatment they were allowed to before Dobbs. This is not a hypothetical, it's not even that rare.
@goaded Dobbs didn't make abortion illegal. It sent the decision to each individual state. That means each state can be as barbaric or as inhumane as they choose to be. So not only are you promoting a false dilemma, you're promoting a false equivalency (doctors universally being afraid after the Dobbs decision).
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh, look, another straw man. I never said Dobbs made abortion illegal, I was pointing out the reality of people's lives in states that have imposed or resumed unreasonable restrictions on abortions.
Here is your false dilemma (fallacy of the excluded middle): You say abortion at term is legal in New Jersey, and someone once performed one in a different state, THEREFORE (supposedly) getting an abortion just before birth must be "no problem".
The truth is that it will be practically impossible to get such an abortion because no decent doctor would consider performing one.
@goaded The point was (and is) that if it can happen where it's illegal, then what is in place to stop it from happening where it's legal, like New Jersey, Oregon, and all of Canada? You claim, "doctors' morality", which is nothing more than blind faith. You're throwing a dart into a dark room and hoping that you hit a bullseye. Meanwhile, I'm putting my faith in two existing facts (the law in those places make it legal, and it's happened once already) and a logical conclusion based on odds and common sense (if it happened once, legal or illegal, it can happen again).
@NYCQuestions1976 No, the point is that you're trying to say that because something can happen it's "no problem". Evel Knievel jumped a motorbike over 15 cars in the 1960's, do you think you could do that "no problem"?
Do you understand the fallacy of the false dilemma? ↗
@goaded It's legal, so why would it be a problem? Moralistic doctors? How many "moralistic" doctors were paid by the tobacco companies in the 1940s and 1950s to tell the public that smoking was good for you? You put way too much blind faith in the moral judgment of the medical community simply because of their titles.
I think the primary issue here is that you're disappointed that you weren't a late-term abortion.
@NYCQuestions1976 Why am I not surprised you can't tell the difference between legal and moral? Again, my point is that you're trying to say that because something can happen it's "no problem". Evel Knievel jumped a motorbike over 15 cars in the 1960's, do you think you could do that "no problem"?
Do you understand the fallacy of the false dilemma? ↗
@goaded I understand the difference completely, which is why I stated a number of times that you're blindly putting your faith in your belief that the morality of practicing abortion doctors will override the current written law in the aforementioned places, and when there's already a documented example of it occurring where it's not legal.
Once again, you should should stick to this type of question below. Meant as satire, but definitely more representative of your cognitive abilities:
Have Essential Oils Been Going To Work Throughout The Entire Pandemic While Non-Essential Oils Have Been Forced To Work From Home? ↗
@NYCQuestions1976 That's funny, because I thought your personal attack (oh, look you just did it again) was an admission of defeat. I'm not "blindly" putting my faith in anyone, you're pretending that the majority of doctors who perform early abortions would also perform late term abortions without a medical reason, and that's bullshit.
One example of something happening does not mean it's easy, dumbass.
@NYCQuestions1976 And that still doesn't mean that most (or essentially any) doctors would perform an abortion on a fetus ready to be born, let alone it being "no problem" to find one, which is what you claim.
@NYCQuestions1976 Well done, you've worn me down. I'm not going to try to speak sense to you any more because you can't be bothered to consider a word I say.
@goaded I've considered every word you've posted. For me to subscribe to your conclusion, I would need to have your same blind faith that the moralistic beliefs of every single abortion doctor would never allow this situation to happen, when I already have one documented example of it happening (where it's illegal, no less), and there are places that exist (New Jersey, Oregon, Canada) where there's nothing in the current law from keeping it from happening again.
@NYCQuestions1976 You haven't considered my "every word", otherwise you wouldn't still be beating that poor straw man. Here, I'll quote the relevant parts:
"For the umpteenth time, I am not denying that it [an abortion of a viable fetus] might conceivably happen (although whether it's legal or not will have very little impact on the likelihood, it requires a morally bankrupt doctor), but your bullshit notion that it is "no problem" for someone to get an abortion of a healthy fetus in the final days of a pregnancy in New Jersey or anywhere else."
and:
"Here is your false dilemma (fallacy of the excluded middle): You say abortion at term is legal in New Jersey, and someone once performed one in a different state, THEREFORE (supposedly) getting an abortion just before birth must be "no problem"."
Do you understand the fallacy of the false dilemma? ↗
@goaded That's all very nice, but you're wrong, and it's not a false dilemma, because the law in New Jersey, Oregon, and all of Canada says you're wrong, and says it's not a false dilemma. It's not my opinion; it's the law in these places. Plus you're putting your blind faith in the moralistic values of all abortion doctors that it'll never happen anywhere, whether it's legal or illegal, and I've already got a documented example of it happening, and in a place (Pennsylvania) where it happens to be illegal.
@NYCQuestions1976 There are many things that are legal that are not easy. Your claim that because something is legal it must be easy is simply illogical. Your claim that I'm saying abortions of viable fetuses will never happen anywhere is simply a lie, as I've pointed out repeatedly in this rather boring conversation. On the other hand, you're claiming they're not only possible, but available up to the moment of birth: "no problem", you say. Even the one example you found wasn't an example of an abortion at term, they don't happen (which is what you originally said before I agreed with you, at which point you changed your mind).
@NYCQuestions1976 No, they don't happen. And it's boring because you keep repeating the same lies and misrepresentations over and over. You have zero examples of an abortion of a healthy fetus even a month or two before its due date; your one example was at 30 weeks, not your bogus "39 weeks, 6 days? No problem.". You must know that no doctor and mother would conspire to abort a healthy fetus that's about to be born, and if they did, there's no law on Earth that would stop them. You can't really be that stupid, so you must just be being stubborn. Just because I agreed with something you said.
But, by all means, keep wittering on about how I have "blind faith" that there aren't large numbers of doctors willing to essentially commit murder if they're asked to by the mother, just because they're legally allowed to, "No problem".
There are doctors and mothers who kill. They're not going to care much if they're breaking the law. (Hmm. That sounds a bit like the "only criminals will have guns" argument.)
@NYCQuestions1976 Sigh. It takes large numbers of doctors performing a service for it to be "No problem" to get, and you don't even have one example.
@goaded You guys have been arguing about this for days, so... I think it means that you can find the service with some research, but as Goaded properly notes, it will not be easy, and due to the time dependency of the underlying condition that delay may very well be a problem.
So, strictly speaking, there IS a problem but NOT an insurmountable one.
My friend 1976 notes that if something can happen and is in demand and compensable, it *will happen eventually* and he is right about this as well. Someone somewhere will need or want this service, and legal or not, somebody with the requisite skills, time, equipment, and desire for compensation will perform them, legal or not.
So strictly speaking, there is "no problem" in that the service is technically possible, although again strictly speaking there IS a problem in that few people perform this service, and there may be a significant delay in obtaining this time-sensitive service and there is a date after which it really cannot be performed without altering the actual nature of it.
I don't see your two positions as mutually exclusive in any way assuming I am understanding them correctly.
Do I have this right, and does my attempt at clarification help?
Sorry, but no. Firstly, you're missing the point that literally no-one carries a healthy fetus to term and then chooses to have an abortion for no reason the day before it's due. So, it is not "in demand". (He even started off by saying "I'm not saying it happens", and he was right because it's a ridiculous idea.)
Secondly, there aren't any reputable doctors who would do that. The only example of someone illegally performing late term abortions he found was at 30 weeks, less than 7 months, not the full 9.
Those are some pretty huge problems, not just some minor technical details.
FWIW, I'd agree that at 30 weeks, maybe even earlier, I would accept personhood, but only if there's still end-of-life options available to the mother if there are medical problems with the fetus.
@goaded @msc545 I stipulate that the typical medical and/or legal exceptions are grandfathered in (rape, incest, mother's health, viability of the fetus) in this conversation.
@msc545 Your assessment of my point-of-view is pretty much spot-on.
@goaded The law in New Jersey, Oregon, and Canada makes it "no problem", not me. You can not like the words I chose to use to make my point all you want, but that doesn't make me legally and/or factually wrong. You're still relying on the good faith of 100% of all abortion doctors to validate your point, and that's virtually and statistically impossible. It only take one for you to be wrong, and any more than zero is unacceptable.
The "30 weeks" you mentioned is what Gosnell was convicted for during his trial. There were dozens, if not hundreds of other procedures he conducted over decades that were far later than 30 weeks. The prosecution just couldn't prove any of those cases "beyond all reasonable doubt" (99.99%), which is the threshold for conviction in a criminal trial. It doesn't mean that those procedures never actually happened.
You're also still using the words I typed to conveniently continue to conflate "statistical zero" (0%) with "absolute zero" (never ever actually happened, and never will ever actually happen).
@NYCQuestions1976 "No problem" means "no problem". "You just need to find a doctor who's willing to essentially commit murder and at least end their career if anyone found out" is a problem.
@goaded
www.mdlinx.com/.../lfc-4792
www.crimetraveller.org/.../
If all of these cases were able to happen to already born patients, what's in place in the law in New Jersey, Oregon, and Canada to prevent any number of abortion doctors from potentially being the same way with fetuses, even if it's only just one doctor? Where were all of their moral judgments?
@NYCQuestions1976 OMG, so now because there are medical serial killers women will go to get an abortion on the last day of their pregnancy? And they'll be able to find the local serial killer doctor to do it? Because that's a sure way to stay undetected. Ridiculous.
@goaded These are just the documented cases. Gosnell went decades undetected. Just about all of the doctors mentioned in those links went decades undetected. Also, those are just the first two links on the search, and I don't believe either one of them covered nurses or any other medical professionals other than specifically doctors.
www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/.../the-10-most-prolific-medical-serial-killers-ever
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18409454/
thoughtcatalog.com/.../
thoughtcatalog.com/.../
You have far too much blind faith in the overall general morality of the medical community.
@goaded I accidentally posted the third one twice. Here's the fourth one:
thoughtcatalog.com/.../
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, and you're still claiming that a pregnant woman will choose the last day of her pregnancy to search out one of these murderous doctors to have an abortion. How, exactly, if they want to go undetected for decades would she do that? Do they advertise? Dead Babies 'R' Us?
Don't forget, this ludricous scenario is just because you couldn't stand me agreeing with you on one point: when you said: "I'm not saying it's happening" (which is exactly what you are saying right now).
@NYCQuestions1976 You're insane, you know that, right? You've not even got one example, no possible motive for any woman ever to want an abortion of a healthy pregnancy on the last day, no way for that non-existant woman to find herself a serial killer doctor to do it. So there's no means, no motive, and no opportunity for what you now claim is "no problem" because you couldn't stand me agreeing with you when you said "I'm not saying it's happening".
@NYCQuestions1976 I've believed for a long time that you're full of shit. Do you want laws against throwing donkeys off the Trump Tower because it might cause a death some day if there isn't one?
@NYCQuestions1976 But someone might ignore that law, or throw an anvil off the Trump Tower instead; best make a law against that, right? Maybe with an exemption if the anvil has ACME written on it.
@goaded Anvils are allowed anywhere there is welding or metalworking going on. Some buildings require prior notice and proper permits for "hot work" ahead of time.
Anything is possible, which was part of my point. The other part was there is no such law in place in New Jersey, Oregon, and Canada. In those places, it's not just "anything is possible". There are also no consequences.
@NYCQuestions1976 Of course there are consequences, any doctor found performing an abortion just before birth on a viable fetus would be immediately struck off, and no woman would wait that long and not just have a C-section and give up the baby. You know this.
@goaded How immediate? Gosnell went decades undetected (despite numerous community complaints over those decades), and in a jurisdiction where there were established consequences. How many were killed before those consequences were actually realized?
Also, struck off by whom exactly? The national mainstream media? The national mainstream media initially tried to cover for Gosnell by deliberately underreporting the story until they had no choice but to finally cover it because reality finally hit them in their smug arrogant faces:
www.cnn.com/.../exp-erin-abortion-doctor-panel.cnn
To their credit, all of the *local* news affiliates in Philadelphia covered this story like crazy. However the national mainstream media didn't give a shit. No national mainstream media in the courtroom during the trial. Pathetic.
@NYCQuestions1976 Even he was never found performing what you claimed was no problem to obtain in your state: an abortion just before birth on a viable fetus. And you're ignoring the vital fact that no woman would wait that long and not just have a C-section and give up the baby.
They make some good points in that video, that the right-wing national media didn't cover it either, and that the women who went to him were poor and desparate, forced to go to him by the cost of the procedure and that they had to delay it to get the money to pay for it. There have been women who have wanted an early abortion but had to find the money to fund it (making it later) only to find that the price goes up (or it becomes illegal) the later it is.
@goaded While he was only found guilty on three cases, he killed hundreds, if not thousands of fetuses over decades of practice, and many of them were more weeks along than those three cases. Stop whistling past the graveyard... figuratively and literally.
Most of his clients were African Americans. That makes him a racist along with being a serial killer.
Get a map. Philadelphia is right on the border with New Jersey. Those "poor and desperate" claims are exaggerated. More like lazy and indifferent. Why travel 10 miles when you can just travel 10 blocks? Also, let's not pretend like Planned Parenthood doesn't have a slush fund for the "poor and desperate". They receive tens of millions of dollars in private donations every year. I refer back to lazy and indifferent.
This is a stupid fight, and it's going to backfire stupendously on conservative Republicans. No different than going after Trump will backfire stupendously on liberal Democrats. Politicians have never learned how to properly read a thermostat.
@slatyb It's not about people that already support Trump. It's about people that are undecided (and some that even don't like him) but hate what they view as government overreach. His approval rating shot up when the FBI raided Mar-A-Lago, and he received a lot of money from many first-time donors when he was indicted. The same thing is happening against Republicans that go after anything beyond third-trimester abortions.
@NYCQuestions1976 How so?
@msc545 Even though most of us have an "overall" way we view the world, there's almost always going to be one or two things that distinguish each of us from everyone else. One of those things for you is being 100% against all abortions, despite having a liberal view on just about everything else. We disagree on this particular issue, but not how most would anticipate, as no one would ever mistaken me for a liberal. I'm morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term abortion. Basically I believe that choice is legally necessary, but would hope that the choice made would be life. Also, no one should need into their third trimester to come to a decision. I'm sure it can been seen how my view on this would annoy both conservatives and liberals.
You just got yourself in a lot of hot water from the pro abortion people.
It is not used to kill an "unborn child". It terminates an early pregnancy when the fetus is microscopic.
Only Texans could be so short-sighted.
Awesome 👍🏻
Not really.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions