A: abortion laws are specific that they are ONLY allowed prior to viability--when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb...
[B,] You are the one who seems to be not understanding the narrowness of abortion law
B: some states allow abortion up until full term. That is not narrow.
A: no they do not--that is propaganda. If a state allowed abortions past viability--they would be effectively breaking the law and would have no protection afforded to them by the Constitution,
Now you may be thinking of what propagandists on fake news channels said were "full term" abortions. But those were for ONLY unelected abortions--that were done for issues that concerned the life of the mother.
AND every Bill (granted you would have to read the laws instead of relying on what the media tells you) REQUIRED that equipment be in place to take care of the child if viable.
This is the issue--you WANT to be uninformed because you WANT this to be the issues-but they are not.
B: lol why don't you go ahead and tell me what an "unelected abortion" is exactly. Under what circumstance in your mind would a medical team ever opt to deliberately KILL - rather than deliver - a full term baby in order to save the mother's life?
You're the one believing propaganda, fren.
A: Deliberately kill--never. That is the point. You can label a c-section as an unelected late term abortion.
They are only done in the rare instances where the pregnancy risks the life of the mother or child. Just because the word "abortion" is used does not mean it is a death sentence. And as the laws all state--EVERY precaution is taken to save the child.
Read them and rove me wrong--you won't but the invitation is there.
Again you have to want to be educated and informed in these issues--which you keep showing me you are not and do not want...
you are ignorantly assuming that states have laws that allow for abortions up to term of the child solely for the death of the child. NOT ME.
Any abortion done after viability is a later term abortion. NONE are being done with the purpose to end the pregnancy--there has to be a medical reason otherwise it is murder. Look up ectopic pregnancy which is just one example. Without an abortion in those situations both the child and the mother will die.
Now if you are of the opinion that you or your daughter would be fine dying instead of the abortion procedure--that is you. But the rest of society and parents would vastly disagree
B: Ectopic pregnancy? Are you for real? 😂 That will explode your insides well before you ever get to second term. That is not a late term abortion, that's a near 💯 exclusively first trimester issue and the pregnancy itself isn't viable in that instance.
A: Unelected and later term abortions in themselves are rare--and EVERY attempt is made to preserve the life of the child if that is possible.
Me: A claims that abortions past the point of viability only ever happen when the life of the mother is threatened
More facts for him to scoff at:
Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science - PMC
"A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions. It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.” When viewed from this perspective, it is possible to see the recent New York and Virginia legislation as a signal that politics, not science, is the most powerful influence on abortion issues and legislation."
A: that study does not to emphasize the fact that any abortion procedure after viability is illegal.
nor does it negate that the purpose of those is to save the child if possible--hence why ALL REQUIRE life saving equipment be on hand and operable prior to the procedure.
Me: A imagines that "any abortion procedure after viability is illegal"
In reality, the Guttmacher Institute informs us that
An Overview of Abortion Laws | Guttmacher Institute
"43 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy, with some exceptions provided. The allowable circumstances are generally when an abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
In other words, in 7 states abortion after viability is legal
A: where in that article does it state abortion after viability is legal in ANY state. Those other states allow for late term abortions--but I have already explained those differences.
No such state will allow for the life of a child to be ended after viability
Me: Looking forward to more cope
State Facts About Abortion: Alaska | Guttmacher Institute
"Restrictions on Abortion
In Alaska, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of January 1, 2022:
A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion."
There is nothing else listed under "Restrictions on Abortion", i.e. there're no other restrictions on abortion
The KFF summarises abortion restrictions a bit differently, but under "State Imposed Threshold for Abortions" we see "N/A" for 7 states and DC
States with Gestational Limits for Abortion | KFF
For people like A who don't understand what "N/A" means, the KFF very helpfully tells us "N/A: Not applicable"
In other words, according to the KFF, 7 states and DC do not restrict abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy
A: what does this article about AK prove since it makes no claim that any abortions are being done to viable fetuses?
Me: Ah, so now the cope is that "it might not be illegal but it's not being done"
Clearly A was referring to himself when he claimed that I "make a comment and then twist yourself into pretzels trying to change what you are arguing and work hard to insult me--that this is more about you saving face then having an actual argument."
A: what do you mean by not illegal? Alaska law defines a legal abortion as "Terminate pregnancy of nonviable fetus"
SO I am asking you to refute where I am stating NO STATE will legally allow a pregnancy to be terminated of a viable fetus--unless it is a medical emergency and even then ALL precautions are taken to save the life of the viable fetus if possible.
Deflect and project because you are butt hurt at my comments all you want.
Or answer my question--I could care les either way.
Me: Since I'm interested to see the next cope,
A: "any abortion procedure after viability is illegal...the purpose of those is to save the child if possible"
The Denver Post reports that "a 13-year-old girl in her third trimester who’d been raped by a family member"
Why a NY woman came to Colorado for a 32-week abortion
CNN reports the case of a woman who got an abortion at 30 weeks in New Mexico
They had abortions late in their pregnancies. These are their stories | CNN
A: In the Denver Post article--the 13 year old was a hypothetical.
Here is the full excerpt (nice purposely selection of what you wanted the article to say rather than actually mean):
Most of his patients, though, gave a reason other than a fetal abnormality. According to the paper, “the proportion of all patients seeking pregnancy termination for fetal disorder increased over time from 2.5% to 30%.”
For him, the decision to abort comes down to a simple question: Is the woman safer carrying to term or not?
His answer was yes for a 13-year-old girl in her third trimester who’d been raped by a family member. It was an awful situation with no easy solution, Hern said. The girl had a long road to recovery from the trauma she experienced no matter what her family decided. But, the doctor said, he turned away a woman who came to him at the same gestational age after she broke up with her partner.
As for the CNN article, you do have a point there as NM law seems to be in violation. They have a weird clause that requires legal abortions are o if "A pregnancy that is likely to result in the death or grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the woman" which this woman claims.
I do not agree the child should have been terminated and I am not sure what they did was actually legal even under NM law--hence why they are not willing to give their name. I do not agree with this nor any state that condones it.
Me: The 13 year old girl was not hypothetical
"His answer was yes for a 13-year-old girl in her third trimester who’d been raped by a family member. It was an awful situation with no easy solution, Hern said. The girl had a long road to recovery from the trauma she experienced no matter what her family decided. But, the doctor said, he turned away a woman who came to him at the same gestational age after she broke up with her partner."
This is clearly referring to a real person
Not sure what quoting the "full excerpt" is supposed to prove
And what is the NM law "in violation" of? What is this 1776 freedom land federal law that bans abortion after viability?
A: the question was in regards to answering when an abortion should or should not occur: " Is the woman safer carrying to term or not?"
His answer was for a 13 year rape victim sadly the answer is yes she is safer carrying to term, hence no abortion despite the psychological impact.
The NM law violates abortions after viability--there are exceptions for life of the mother but they stretch it further to include mental health, which I am not sure falls under the Constitutional constructs of Roe v Wade or Casey--which is what bans abortions after viability and has the been the whole point of discussion.
Me: I can't believe I need to explain this
"Hern kept detailed records on his patients’ reported fetal anomalies over two decades — up to 2012 — and published his own paper detailing 160 different conditions cited in seeking abortions."
Hern was talking about actual abortions for late term abortion
"Most of his patients, though, gave a reason other than a fetal abnormality"
This is referring to real patients and the reasons they gave for late term abortion
"His answer was yes for a 13-year-old girl in her third trimester who’d been raped by a family member"
He was referring to his judgment in an actual case for a 13 year old girl who was in her third trimester and had been r a p e d by a family member
"It was an awful situation with no easy solution"
The use of the past tense means that this was an actual situation which happened in the past
"he turned away a woman who came to him at the same gestational age after she broke up with her partner"
This was referring to another real third trimester patient with an equally advanced pregnancy
How is how the paragraph would have read if Hern had been talking about hypotheticals (ignoring the previous paragraphs talking about real cases):
"His answer would be yes for a 13-year-old girl in her third trimester who’d been raped by a family member. It would be an awful situation with no easy solution, Hern said. The girl would have a long road to recovery from the trauma she experienced no matter what her family decided. But, the doctor said, he would turn away a woman who came to him at the same gestational age after she broke up with her partner."
Note the use of the conditional (for hypothetical events) as opposed to the past tense (for actual events in the past)
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about
Roe v. Wade (1973) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
"The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
Roe v Wade does not ban abortion after viability
"After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions"
does not mean
"After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state had to regulate or outlaw abortions"
A: what are you talking about? The language specifically allows a state to outlaw abortions after viability.
You are trying so hard to prove I am wrong that you start arguing semantics like this is some dissertational defense instead of me randomly commenting on a phone.
The argument is whether states CAN ban abortions--I am not going to dictate every lawful objective at their disposal and for the sake of argument I have only focused on what options states have for outlawing or banning abortions. Whether they can regulate them otherwise is irrelevant
A state wantonly murdering a living child is NOT part of Roe v Wade--which is the context it is brought up when people like Jessie bring up late term abortions.
Me: That was a remarkably fast turnaround
"Roe v Wade... is what bans abortions after viability" - you, 23 minutes ago
A: and I love how you copied and pasted so much of that article but PURPOSELY left out the context of the 13 year old girl comment.
For him, the decision to abort comes down to a simple question: Is the woman safer carrying to term or not?
"His answer was yes for a 13-year-old girl in her third trimester who’d been raped by a family member. It was an awful situation with no easy solution."
Nowhere else does he discuss the 13 year old or provide any further context of the procedure or its outcome
Yes Roe v Wade provides states the means to ban abortions after viability. Nothing I have said contradicts that statement.
Me: QFT
"where in that article does it state abortion after viability is legal in ANY state. Those other states allow for late term abortions--but I have already explained those differences.
No such state will allow for the life of a child to be ended after viability"
A: yes nowhere in that article you posted refutes said statement.
And we are talking about what states can allow for the death of a child post-viability--unless it is a medical emergency or life of the mother. As far as I have seen none can or should.
I did recognize that the NM case was wrong--and maintained based on what I have said that it may very well been illegal--hence why they refused to provide their information.
