Who would support a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks that guarantees the right to abortion before then?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

Nay, opinion formed years ago it will not change. 

[homersapien 11,393]

23 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

What say you @TitanTiger@icanthearyou@SaltyTiger@homersapien@CoffeeTiger?

Yes, I would.  The status quo is untenable.

But we also need establish a basic right to healthcare as national policy.

Edited June 29, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,963]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Nay, opinion formed years ago it will not change. 

And that is?

[AU9377 4,979]

On 6/27/2022 at 3:31 PM, TexasTiger said:

Republicans in Congress are planning legislation that outlaws abortion after 15 weeks.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/24/politics/republican-reaction-abortion-congress/index.html

What if the bill also prevented states from outlawing abortion before 15 weeks and only allowed it after that time with two doctors agreeing the health of the mother warranted it? This is similar to the law in many European countries? 

If you’re opposed to abortion would you support this compromise? If you’re pro-choice would you support it?

I know you realize this, but someone can be opposed to abortion, but nonetheless acknowledge that it isn't their choice to make and therefore be pro-choice. 

As for what you propose, I believe that I could support a bill similar to that, with several caveats.  I would insist that there be allowance made for someone choosing to abort a fetus with severe defects that would make the child incapable of surviving once born.  That isn't the most elegant way of stating that, but those issues would need to be addressed in addition to life of the mother considerations.

Edited June 29, 2022 by AU9377

[autigeremt 6,652]

“Adoption is an imperfect solution....it shouldn't be what is encouraged and isn't a system that sets all children up for success and productive, healthy lives.”

 

I resent this remark as I am living proof that a counter argument can be made for this along with my sister. 

[AUDub 11,158]

36 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I resent this remark as I am living proof that a counter argument can be made for this along with my sister. 

One single proof does not proof make. Note where he said "all." 

Foster kids, by and large, often face unfair barriers they do not deserve. Just because you overcame them doesn't mean the system isn't still broken. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

One single proof does not proof make. Note where he said "all." 

Foster kids, by and large, often face unfair barriers they do not deserve. Just because you overcame them doesn't mean the system isn't still broken. 

I believe a well run adoption system could eliminate a great deal of the need for foster care.

[AUDub 11,158]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe a well run adoption system could eliminate a great deal of the need for foster care.

I believe that's extremely hard to pull off on a good day. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I believe that's extremely hard to pull off on a good day. 

Logistically or bureaucratically?

[AUDub 11,158]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Logistically or bureaucratically?

Both.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, AUDub said:

Both.

Disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:22 AM, TexasTiger said:

What say you @TitanTiger@icanthearyou@SaltyTiger@homersapien@CoffeeTiger?

I've mentioned multiple times in my critiques of how a lot of conservatives approach this issue that my aim on any abortion related policy is to save as many unborn babies as possible.  It's why I think we need to approach the issue not just from a supply angle (it's legal status and availability), but a demand angle (addressing the issues that pressure most women into considering abortions).

Ninety-two percent of abortions happen before 15 weeks, so I don't see how this would really move the needle much on the supply part of the equation.  It doesn't do much to save many babies, so I wouldn't be in favor of this proposal.

[AUDub 11,158]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Disagree.

From a logistical standpoint, suppose you're adopting a healthy newborn, there are WAY more people looking to adopt than there are available healthy newborns. There is a waiting list that takes years to get through.  If you're willing to accept older children or unhealthy babies, suddenly there are more of them available than homes willing to take then. 

And there's a lot of red tape because their has to be. Imagine the outrage should a child come to harm because someone didn't do their due diligence when vetting potential adopters. Adopting a child isn't like adopting a puppy. The agencies have to be careful.

Regarding bureaucratically, I would like to see some meaningful improvent to the system from our elected officials, but I'm not confident. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by AUDub
What a Typo

[icanthearyou 4,463]

27 minutes ago, AUDub said:

From a logistical standpoint, suppose you're adopting a healthy newborn, there are WAY more people looking to adopt than there are available healthy newborns. There is a waiting list that takes years to get through.  If you're willing to accept older children or unhealthy babies, suddenly there are more of them available than homes willing to take then. 

And there's a lot of red rape because their has to be. Imagine the outrage should a child come to harm because someone didn't do their due diligence when vetting potential adopters. Adopting a child isn't like adopting a puppy. The agencies have to be careful.

Regarding bureaucratically, I would like to see some meaningful improvent to the system from our elected officials, but I'm not confident. 

I don't disagree that it would take major reforms and, patience.  I disagree that it would truly be difficult to achieve.

I also think the reforms would help reduce the numbers of older children hopelessly locked into the foster system, as well as produce a better foster system.

I certainly understand your thoughts though, particularly in today's political climate.

Edited June 29, 2022 by icanthearyou

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And that is?

I think “Nay” is pretty clear. Understand when health is an issue.

I also understand that others have different feelings. While comfortable with my thinking I do not feel compelled to shout murderer or throw bombs at opposing ideas.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:22 AM, TexasTiger said:

What say you @TitanTiger@icanthearyou@SaltyTiger@homersapien@CoffeeTiger?

I believe we were already there.

I believe that adding some social programs to support those in need and, reforming the adoption process is the correct route to furthering the reduction in abortions.

I believe society is capable of self regulation by a true democratic process.  I believe this is a fundamental part of our founding we have lost.

I believe this argument was purely contrived, not by those with exceptional conscience but, by those without conscience lusting for political power.

I believe this is moot as, the political forces that formed this argument and, the associated propaganda aren't going to compromise.  The argument is too valuable to them.

[alexava 6,973]

I’m in 100% on this proposal! Then everyone MOVE ON AND LEAVE IT ALONE,

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe we were already there.

I believe that adding some social programs to support those in need and, reforming the adoption process is the correct route to furthering the reduction in abortions.

I believe society is capable of self regulation by a true democratic process.  I believe this is a fundamental part of our founding we have lost.

I believe this argument was purely contrived, not by those with exceptional conscience but, by those without conscience lusting for political power.

I believe this is moot as, the political forces that formed his argument and, the associated propaganda aren't going to compromise.  The argument is too valuable to them.

This ^ in a nutshell.

But there's going to be a lot of unnecessary suffering by primarily poor people before we get back to where we were. 

The "pro lifers" who brought this on are simply cruel, whether they realize it or not. 

They don't give a s*** about helping people already living desperate lives.  They would punish these women - and the additional unwanted babies' -  by making their lives even more desperate, while washing their hands of the responsibility for doing so. 

It's self-righteous cruelty.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, alexava said:

I’m in 100% on this proposal! Then everyone MOVE ON AND LEAVE IT ALONE,

No, unfortunately we've got to let it play out for a few more years first in order to document the suffering in the "Taliban states". Even then, they may hold their course. 

Like I said, the only thing that matters to them are their own religious convictions - and most importantly, political votes.  They couldn't give a s*** about the real world consequences to the poor and disadvantage in their states.

As yet, I don't know of any governors of states who are outlawing abortion seriously acknowledging the impacts this will have on their poorer residents - who are already suffering from a lack of healthcare and poverty.  The best I've seen is vague promises like "we'll have to address that in the future" or some such BS.

Edited June 29, 2022 by homersapien

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

I believe that's extremely hard to pull off on a good day. 

Sadly, so true.

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Disagree.

Both of those plus financially. Any time the government mentions raising taxes for social programs Republicans freak the hell out.

How would we fund a fully functioning reformed adoption system when 40% of the country would tell their reps vote no so my taxes don't get raised.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, Didba said:

Both of those plus financially. Any time the government mentions raising taxes for social programs Republicans freak the hell out.

How would we fund a fully functioning reformed adoption system when 40% of the country would tell their reps vote no so my taxes don't get raised.

Most folks I know would be ok with paying a little more in taxes if we actually felt the government would spend it correctly. But they already waste so much of our tax money. They can probably find funding if they take a good look at their spending as is. 

[Didba 5,256]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Most folks I know would be ok with paying a little more in taxes if we actually felt the government would spend it correctly. But they already waste so much of our tax money. They can probably find funding if they take a good look at their spending as is. 

Cut 5% of military spending and we could fund a ton of great social programs. And our military would still kick everyone's ass just fine.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Looks like ICHY likes wasteful spending. 

[alexava 6,973]

58 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, unfortunately we've got to let it play out for a few more years first in order to document the suffering in the "Taliban states". Even then, they may hold their course. 

Like I said, the only thing that matters to them are their own religious convictions - and most importantly, political votes.  They couldn't give a s*** about the real world consequences to the poor and disadvantage in their states.

As yet, I don't know of any governors of states who are outlawing abortion seriously acknowledging the impacts this will have on their poorer residents - who are already suffering from a lack of healthcare and poverty.  The best I've seen is vague promises like "we'll have to address that in the future" or some such BS.

It’s not all religious convictions. It’s monkey see monkey do in some instances. A portion of pro lifers have no morals and don’t give a damn about the born or unborn. Hell I have been guilty of following the party line myself in the past. I’m not proud of that. Anytime emotion is used in politics you better look out.