None yet, but I have delivered one and came close to a second one.
Helmet Laws/Abortion
- Thread starter RonaldMexico
- Start date
I didn’t say it was a problem. I thought it was relatively self-explanatory that my point was JP was trying to pretend OP wasn’t talking about the >90% of abortions that are purely voluntary.
They are different. Not wearing a helmet is your choice. At some point, abortion is making a choice for another person.
The thing with the pro choice people is this. If pro lifers agreed to abortion for incest, rape, health of the mother and everything else was illegal- they wouldn't take that because it really is about killing the kids.
If your anti-abortion buddies would write a law that included every legal medical exception, most probably wouldn't have an issue with that, provided 16-20 wks was fully legal.
The reality is they do not want any abortions, nor anyone trained in how to perform them (which is a medical necessity for being an ObGyn). You don't want a 1st day resident having to perform an abortion on someone in medical distress; you want them trained on the low-risk cases.
Otherwise, women end up dying.
Just this year, 5-6 women have had to be Air-Evac'd out of Idaho. Once seasonal winter weather sets in making that impossible, some of them will not survive. And I believe the number is >40% of miscarriages occur in women who have previously given birth, which will leave some people's kids w/o a mother.
I would be fine with a national law that makes it legal for any reason up to 15 weeks and for medical necessity, rape, and incest after that.
But there are a lot of people, including posters on this board, who are completely unwilling to settle for anything less than 25 weeks.
This is simply false.
16-20 wks is non-viable, and should be legal in all cases.
Anything past that should have a medical list of accepted "anomalies" that may result in impacting the health of the mother. That list should be created & maintained by physicians/AMA, and medical codes used to establish legality. You code an abortion under one of those items, it is fully legal.
Conservatives will never allow this, because they WANT the ambiguity. They do not want "legal outs" for women who have high-risk pregnancies and may not want to risk leaving their other kids motherless just to try to carry to term.
They also do not want ObGyns who are trained to perform abortions, despite that being standard medical practice, and a necessity for surgeons who need to perform one in a critical case, quickly and efficiently.
I can 100% guarantee that the left will not allow it. It is about the convenience of killing babies and not about exceptions to the norm.
If you had read my post you would know that your response actually proves my point. So that’s kind of fun.
It applies so long as they only ride on private property. Once they use public motorways it gets more complicated and political.
I believe we should protect all babies, so if you are asking if I believe babies on motorcycles should be required to wear a helmet, I say yes. Because just like an abortion, the adult shouldn't be allowed to make life and death decisions for babies.
Then why never propose that kind of a bill if those are their baseline sticking points?
At least Bill Maher was honest about it. He just doesn't mind killing babies as he thinks we have too many people already.
Uh....that's YOUR "side's" job, if they want/need abortion restrictions.
Those rules would be nearly entirely consistent w/ where Roe was. When moderates and liberals were pretty much fine with.
Latest posts
-
-
-
2025 Seven-Footer and Iowa Basketball Priority Talks Official Visit
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
