Trump says abortion law should be determined by states

[JCauto]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Very clear, thanks. So we really aren't that far apart then, wonder why you were spewing all the vitriol.   

 

Just curious, would you change your stance if medical technology advances and the age of viability becomes shorter? 

 

No. We're already there. IVF has just been ruled to be exactly that in Alabama I think? I expect human cloning to already have occurred somewhere. There's a need to draw a reasonable line and then leave it exclusively between the woman and her physician. The government should have no interest in the matter and no access to any of the information unless there is a criminal investigation. Doctors are trained and licensed and can handle the matter as well as recognize when something is not right and report it to the authorities if necessary.

 

The vitriol is because this debate isn't and never was about reasonable abortion laws. Let's not pretend if we're being all clear and honest here. Not saying this about you particularly, saying this about the reason this has become such an important topic in the USA.

[stevenl]

19 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Not at all. I think free and widely available birth control is a great idea. I never said a total ban on abortion was the way to go. But you seemed to ignore that most industrialized nations do put time based restriction on abortion, which generally match what Trump said was his policy. Generally 10 to 14 weeks across western Europe (with exceptions, but generally). 

 

No need for the hysteria and hyperbole though. What happens in developing countries has zero to do with policy in the US. Let them make up their own minds.  As to the value of the baby vs the mother, that has been covered. I think abortion should be permitted if the life of the mother is in danger. Period. 

 

Now, time to lay YOUR cards on the table. What restrictions, if any, should there be? Please try to be specific without using euphemisms or dodges. 

"No need for the hysteria and hyperbole though. What happens in developing countries has zero to do with policy in the US. "

Then maybe don't use 'What happens in developing countries' as an argument for your case. 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"No need for the hysteria and hyperbole though. What happens in developing countries has zero to do with policy in the US. "

Then maybe don't use 'What happens in developing countries' as an argument for your case. 

What specific restrictions do you think there should be on abortion? 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What specific restrictions do you think there should be on abortion? 

As usual, quoting and then ignoring the post. The word for that is trolling.

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As usual, quoting and then ignoring the post. The word for that is trolling.

That's what I thought, it's my fault you can't answer. 

 

 

 

[JCauto]

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I find the left's language hilarious.  "Reproductive health services" is abortion and "gender health care" is surgery to ruin kids lives. 

 

So, the mother's life is at risk, and she can abort a full-term baby is she can find a leftist doctor that says she's over-stressed. 

 

 

There's some classic Right-wing tactics. Let's invent something out of thin air, then pretend that what we invented is true, then draw conclusions from the invention that we made up out of thin air.

Reproductive health services cover a range of different things from birth control to various aspects of women's health relating to the uterus, ovaries, etc. Gender health care includes counseling and other support services. Did you know that less than 1% of people who underwent transgender surgery regret that choice afterwards? For similar surgeries that are NOT for trans people, the regret ranges from 5-14%.

https://theconversation.com/transgender-regret-research-challenges-narratives-about-gender-affirming-surgeries-220642

 

Nobody has postulated that a woman who is over-stressed can use that as an excuse for aborting a full-term baby. In fact, nobody is talking about aborting full-term babies except people like Trump who say this without the slightest bit of evidence of it happening. I don't suppose you have any examples of this? Of course you don't.

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, JCauto said:

There's some classic Right-wing tactics. Let's invent something out of thin air, then pretend that what we invented is true, then draw conclusions from the invention that we made up out of thin air.

Reproductive health services cover a range of different things from birth control to various aspects of women's health relating to the uterus, ovaries, etc. Gender health care includes counseling and other support services. Did you know that less than 1% of people who underwent transgender surgery regret that choice afterwards? For similar surgeries that are NOT for trans people, the regret ranges from 5-14%.

https://theconversation.com/transgender-regret-research-challenges-narratives-about-gender-affirming-surgeries-220642

 

I think we all understand there is more to reproductive health services than abortion, and that there is more to gender care than mutilating children's genitals, but the left uses phrases like "reproductive health services" and "gender affirming care" to hide what is that they are actually promoting.

 

Most people are all for "reproductive health services", but when it comes to free late-term or partial-birth abortions, they are not. 

 

Most people are all for "gender affirming care", but when it comes to mutilating children's genitals or providing puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function, they are not. 

 

You post a link to article that says things like "evidence shows" but really seems to show no hard data at all. And where would they get any data to do a long-term study about kids that have been transitioned?

 

In any event, it does not surprise me that only 1% of kids would admit to being sorry the had their penis cut off, particularly because when they are put on puberty blockers early, they don't even know what it is, and how great sex would have been had they never done it. 

 

 

1 minute ago, JCauto said:

Nobody has postulated that a woman who is over-stressed can use that as an excuse for aborting a full-term baby. In fact, nobody is talking about aborting full-term babies except people like Trump who say this without the slightest bit of evidence of it happening. I don't suppose you have any examples of this? Of course you don't.

 

Partial birth abortion was banned in 2003, and the ban was later struck down by the court. There are currently no term restrictions in six states and Washington, D.C.

 

 

This guy was doing it for a long time until he got carried away. Kermit Gosnell - Wikipedia

 

I support twelve weeks unconditional and unlimited if the mother's physical life is at significant risk. 

 

[Hanaguma]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

"No need for the hysteria and hyperbole though. What happens in developing countries has zero to do with policy in the US. "

Then maybe don't use 'What happens in developing countries' as an argument for your case. 

Uh, I don't think I did that. Unless France, Germany, and the like are "developing countries"... That was another poster, quoting health outcomes from the third world. 

[JCauto]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:13 AM, Yellowtail said:

 

I think we all understand there is more to reproductive health services than abortion, and that there is more to gender care than mutilating children's genitals, but the left uses phrases like "reproductive health services" and "gender affirming care" to hide what is that they are actually promoting.

 

Most people are all for "reproductive health services", but when it comes to free late-term or partial-birth abortions, they are not. 

 

Most people are all for "gender affirming care", but when it comes to mutilating children's genitals or providing puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function, they are not. 

 

You post a link to article that says things like "evidence shows" but really seems to show no hard data at all. And where would they get any data to do a long-term study about kids that have been transitioned?

 

In any event, it does not surprise me that only 1% of kids would admit to being sorry the had their penis cut off, particularly because when they are put on puberty blockers early, they don't even know what it is, and how great sex would have been had they never done it. 

 

 

Partial birth abortion was banned in 2003, and the ban was later struck down by the court. There are currently no term restrictions in six states and Washington, D.C.

 

 

This guy was doing it for a long time until he got carried away. Kermit Gosnell - Wikipedia

 

I support twelve weeks unconditional and unlimited if the mother's physical life is at significant risk. 

 

 

So having been called out for your gross mischaracterizations and making up straw men, your followup is...more gross mischaracterizations and strawmen! You finally admit your wording about reproductive health services and gender affirming care is incorrect. But instead of walking back your mischaracterization you double down and once again put up something nobody has been talking about - free late-term or partial-birth abortions. This is not a norm. This is the far radical position, and nothing whatsoever about what we've been discussing. I noted in the far more nuanced discussion with Hanaguma that I would support 26 weeks as that being the point of viability, but that there are numerous exceptions that are possible and they only need to be determined by the woman and her physician.

 

Then of course you rabbit on about how the article doesn't show any hard data - instead it links to the article that has the hard data and summarizes the findings. Another mischaracterization, but that's par for the course with sophists like yourself.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2813212

 

Your imagination about how kids would think is revealing, but completely irrelevant. Here's a clue - freedom means individuals being able to do what the <deleted> they want so long as they're not harming others. Get it? Now stop projecting YOUR morals, YOUR ideas and YOUR views onto other people. You hate it when people do it to you, so leave everyone else alone and they'll leave you to your little world. I don't care that you're a bigot, and you can scream at the monitor to your heart's content. If you write your bigotry out so we can comment, then you're going to get the approbation you richly deserve.

Then of course you find an example so absurd and atypical it is utterly meaningless and disproves the very point you're making. An actual serial killer who was a doctor! Yep, happens all the time! Guess what? The existing laws were perfectly sufficient to stop that guy and put him in prison. That's why we have laws and why those who break them go to jail. You support that, right?

 

Finally, having splattered your nonsense all over the screen you pluck 12 weeks out of the air without any justification or discussion and then completely eviscerate your own argument by saying you support unlimited abortions if the mother's physical life is at significant risk. WHICH MEANS INCLUDING PARTIAL BIRTH AND LATE-TERM ABORTIONS! My goodness, the cognitive dissonance must be debilitating. No wonder you can't make any logical arguments.

[Wrwest]

On 4/9/2024 at 9:25 PM, Hanaguma said:

If not an artificial calendar limit, then what (if any ) restrictions would you impose on abortions? Across western Europe, 12-14 week limits are common- Germany, Belgium, France, Norway, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy...

 

What do you mean by "medical circumstances"? Those are generally covered as exceptions in most jurisdictions- risk of death to the mother, incurable or fatal disease of the baby, etc. 

Not consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court ruling and now the Arizona Court ruling. Is a genetic flaw calling for a non-viable birth the subject of being a "disease"? I am not up on the various European nations individual abortion laws. I certainly would be focusing on whether their exceptions are in line with your thinking.

[Yellowtail]

On 4/12/2024 at 12:19 PM, JCauto said:

 

So having been called out for your gross mischaracterizations and making up straw men, your followup is...more gross mischaracterizations and strawmen! You finally admit your wording about reproductive health services and gender affirming care is incorrect. But instead of walking back your mischaracterization you double down and once again put up something nobody has been talking about - free late-term or partial-birth abortions. This is not a norm. This is the far radical position, and nothing whatsoever about what we've been discussing. I noted in the far more nuanced discussion with Hanaguma that I would support 26 weeks as that being the point of viability, but that there are numerous exceptions that are possible and they only need to be determined by the woman and her physician.

 

What I said was that I I think we all understand there is more to reproductive health services than abortion, and that there is more to gender care than mutilating children's genitals, but the left uses phrases like "reproductive health services" and "gender affirming care" to hide what is that they are actually promoting.

 

And that most people are all for "reproductive health services", but when it comes to free late-term or partial-birth abortions, they are not. 

 

And that most people are all for "gender affirming care", but when it comes to mutilating children's genitals or providing puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function, they are not. 

 

So I am not really sure what you're on about. I never claimed full term abortion was the "norm". I assume most women that kill it as soon as they know they're pregnant. 

 

On 4/12/2024 at 12:19 PM, JCauto said:

 

Then of course you rabbit on about how the article doesn't show any hard data - instead it links to the article that has the hard data and summarizes the findings. Another mischaracterization, but that's par for the course with sophists like yourself.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2813212

What I said was that the article you linked to says things like "evidence shows" but really showed no hard data at all. I notices the link to another "viewpoint", but not surprising, no actual study was provided.

 

I also asked you where they would they get any data to do a long-term study about kids that have been transitioned, but of course you dodged that question, because of course you don't know. 

 

In any event, it does not surprise me that only 1% of kids would admit to being sorry the had their penis cut off, particularly because when they are put on puberty blockers early, they don't even know what it is, and how great sex would have been had they never done it. 

 

On 4/12/2024 at 12:19 PM, JCauto said:

Your imagination about how kids would think is revealing, but completely irrelevant. Here's a clue - freedom means individuals being able to do what the <deleted> they want so long as they're not harming others. Get it? Now stop projecting YOUR morals, YOUR ideas and YOUR views onto other people. You hate it when people do it to you, so leave everyone else alone and they'll leave you to your little world. I don't care that you're a bigot, and you can scream at the monitor to your heart's content. If you write your bigotry out so we can comment, then you're going to get the approbation you richly deserve.

What I said was that it did not surprise me that only 1% of kids would admit to being sorry the had their penis cut off, particularly because when they are put on puberty blockers early, they don't even know what it is, and how great sex would have been had they never done it. 

 

Now you are implying that kids should be "...allowed to do what the <deleted> they want so long as they're not harming others.", which I assume includes smoke cigarettes, get tattoos, shoot heroin, have their penis cut off, have their ears cut off, whatever, right? 

 

On 4/12/2024 at 12:19 PM, JCauto said:

Then of course you find an example so absurd and atypical it is utterly meaningless and disproves the very point you're making. An actual serial killer who was a doctor! Yep, happens all the time! Guess what? The existing laws were perfectly sufficient to stop that guy and put him in prison. That's why we have laws and why those who break them go to jail. You support that, right?

Wrong, the guy committed thousands of late term abortions, and was only convicted because he got carried away and killed at least three of them after they were born and both breathing and crying. 

 

If it does not happen, why was partial birth abortion was banned in 2003, and why did the pro abortion activists sue to have the ban struck down by the court? There are currently no term restrictions in six states and Washington, D.C..

 

 

On 4/12/2024 at 12:19 PM, JCauto said:

Finally, having splattered your nonsense all over the screen you pluck 12 weeks out of the air without any justification or discussion and then completely eviscerate your own argument by saying you support unlimited abortions if the mother's physical life is at significant risk. WHICH MEANS INCLUDING PARTIAL BIRTH AND LATE-TERM ABORTIONS! My goodness, the cognitive dissonance must be debilitating. No wonder you can't make any logical arguments.

 

Yes, I support abortion at any point is the mother's physical life is at significant risk, how does that go against what I have said?

 

I would also support cutting off a boy's penis for gangrene it was going to save the boy's life, what of it? 

 

You're a schoolteacher, yes? 

[JCauto]

On 4/13/2024 at 5:23 PM, Yellowtail said:

And that most people are all for "gender affirming care", but when it comes to mutilating children's genitals or providing puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function, they are not.

 

Perhaps not a majority, but a significant minority have no issues with it. Seems to be a stark political split between Left and Right on this issue. As it's been adopted more recently by the Right as one of their key issues to get their base out to vote and try to paint the Left as being weird, suddenly this is now a topic where everyone has an opinion. Yet I wonder how many people who have  have actually met or experienced people who suffer from gender dysmorphia are among all these people with such strong opinions? It's what we call a "wedge issue" in politics. It's actually of minor importance given how few of the population it affects.

 

So I am not really sure what you're on about. I never claimed full term abortion was the "norm". I assume most women that kill it as soon as they know they're pregnant. 

 

No, but you raise it as a hyperbolic example when it is hardly an issue at all. This is a tiresome rhetorical device used when you have no real interest in substantive debate but just want to shock readers.

 

What I said was that the article you linked to says things like "evidence shows" but really showed no hard data at all. I notices the link to another "viewpoint", but not surprising, no actual study was provided.

 

I also asked you where they would they get any data to do a long-term study about kids that have been transitioned, but of course you dodged that question, because of course you don't know. 

 

Disingenuous. It clearly links to a scientific study, but you have to register to download it.

 

In any event, it does not surprise me that only 1% of kids would admit to being sorry the had their penis cut off, particularly because when they are put on puberty blockers early, they don't even know what it is, and how great sex would have been had they never done it. 

 

Is it really that difficult for you to understand that people who have gender dysmorphia would not actually enjoy sex as a CIS male? Do you really think it is so easy to get puberty blockers and surgery? None of those things are true.

 

Now you are implying that kids should be "...allowed to do what the <deleted> they want so long as they're not harming others.", which I assume includes smoke cigarettes, get tattoos, shoot heroin, have their penis cut off, have their ears cut off, whatever, right? 

 

And here we go again, hyperbolic nonsense rather than honest debate.

 

Wrong, the guy committed thousands of late term abortions, and was only convicted because he got carried away and killed at least three of them after they were born and both breathing and crying. 

 

If it does not happen, why was partial birth abortion was banned in 2003, and why did the pro abortion activists sue to have the ban struck down by the court? There are currently no term restrictions in six states and Washington, D.C..

 

Yes, I support abortion at any point is the mother's physical life is at significant risk, how does that go against what I have said?

 

Now that these three statements are listed one after the other, do you observe the sophistry, contradiction and hypocrisy? The continued use of hyperbolic examples that have nothing to do with the actual issue, then your own actual opinion that SUPPORTS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION!

 

I would also support cutting off a boy's penis for gangrene it was going to save the boy's life, what of it? 

 

Non sequitur.

 

You're a schoolteacher, yes? 

 

No, never have been. Engineer.

 

[Yellowtail]

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

And that most people are all for "gender affirming care", but when it comes to mutilating children's genitals or providing puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function, they are not.

 

Perhaps not a majority, but a significant minority have no issues with it. Seems to be a stark political split between Left and Right on this issue. As it's been adopted more recently by the Right as one of their key issues to get their base out to vote and try to paint the Left as being weird, suddenly this is now a topic where everyone has an opinion. Yet I wonder how many people who have  have actually met or experienced people who suffer from gender dysmorphia are among all these people with such strong opinions? It's what we call a "wedge issue" in politics. It's actually of minor importance given how few of the population it affects.

 

What is a significant minority? It's hard for me to believe that 20-30% of people in the US support mutilating children's genitals and or providing puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function. 

 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

So I am not really sure what you're on about. I never claimed full term abortion was the "norm". I assume most women that kill it as soon as they know they're pregnant. 

 

No, but you raise it as a hyperbolic example when it is hardly an issue at all. This is a tiresome rhetorical device used when you have no real interest in substantive debate but just want to shock readers.

So agree late-term abortions should be banned, correct? 

 

How do you define late term? 

 

Available here: 

Abortion after 26 weeks - Dupont Clinic | Gynecology & Reproductive Health | Washington DC

 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

What I said was that the article you linked to says things like "evidence shows" but really showed no hard data at all. I notices the link to another "viewpoint", but not surprising, no actual study was provided.

 

I also asked you where they would they get any data to do a long-term study about kids that have been transitioned, but of course you dodged that question, because of course you don't know. 

 

Disingenuous. It clearly links to a scientific study, but you have to register to download it.

You are wrong. It links to the "full text" of the article, which is pretending to be a "scientific study". 

 

Please post some up some of the data sets and I will happily apologize, but you can't, because articles like this are tyically long on rhetoric, and short on facts and data. 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

In any event, it does not surprise me that only 1% of kids would admit to being sorry the had their penis cut off, particularly because when they are put on puberty blockers early, they don't even know what it is, and how great sex would have been had they never done it. 

 

Is it really that difficult for you to understand that people who have gender dysmorphia would not actually enjoy sex as a CIS male? Do you really think it is so easy to get puberty blockers and surgery? None of those things are true.

So, because a boy that thinks he's a girl does not enjoy sex with a girl, you believe that "...a significant minority..." of Americans support putting him on puberty blockers that often result in serialization and or never having any sexual function, and cutting off his penis, correct? 

 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

Now you are implying that kids should be "...allowed to do what the <deleted> they want so long as they're not harming others.", which I assume includes smoke cigarettes, get tattoos, shoot heroin, have their penis cut off, have their ears cut off, whatever, right? 

 

And here we go again, hyperbolic nonsense rather than honest debate.

How so? I think it is you just dodging honest debate. When discussing "gender affirming care" for children, you claimed: "...freedom means individuals being able to do what the <deleted> they want so long as they're not harming others...", how are the things I listed any different? If you support a boy having his penis cut off, why would you draw the line at getting tattoos? How does a kid getting tatted up, smoking or shooting heroin harm others? 

 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

Wrong, the guy committed thousands of late term abortions, and was only convicted because he got carried away and killed at least three of them after they were born and both breathing and crying. 

 

If it does not happen, why was partial birth abortion was banned in 2003, and why did the pro abortion activists sue to have the ban struck down by the court? There are currently no term restrictions in six states and Washington, D.C..

 

Yes, I support abortion at any point is the mother's physical life is at significant risk, how does that go against what I have said?

 

Now that these three statements are listed one after the other, do you observe the sophistry, contradiction and hypocrisy? The continued use of hyperbolic examples that have nothing to do with the actual issue, then your own actual opinion that SUPPORTS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION!

No, I do not " observe the sophistry, contradiction and hypocrisy...", please explain it to me. But you can't, so you'll just saw the same thing over and or call me stupid. 

 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

I would also support cutting off a boy's penis for gangrene it was going to save the boy's life, what of it? 

 

Non sequitur.

How is it a non sequitur? You can't explain it, because it's not true. 

 

There are things I would not typically support, that may be even illegal that I would support under extraordinary circumstances. That is how I see a later term abortion. 

 

50 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

You're a schoolteacher, yes? 

 

No, never have been. Engineer.

Environmental?