Florida’s house introduces abortion bill similar to Texas.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (28)
sorted by:
Florida and Texas taking the bull by the horns. What a show watching the liberal tears flow.
Here is some more good news.
"Governor Greg Abbott recently signed more abortion-related restrictions into law in Texas.
The law aims to cut off a legal way for Texans to obtain legal abortions by restricting abortion-inducing drugs. The new measure goes into effect in December."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gov-abbott-signs-bill-tightening-restrictions-on-abortion-inducing-drugs/ar-AAOHRFI?ocid=uxbndlbing
Well however has the smallest one we all get to hit it with a stick
We are witnessing national repentance for the murder of the unborn.
Thank God.
Unpopular opinion: Roe v. Wade was the right compromise on the issue of abortion at the time and should be revered as such regardless of your political or even religious persuasion.
If you can prove that viability is earlier than 24 weeks now, I'd be fine with updating that ruling to reflect that, but otherwise I'm fine with it.
I don't want to live in a world where viable babies are allowed to be murdered simply because the birth process hasn't taken place yet, but I also don't want to live in a world where women give up their medical privacy and autonomy the moment they have sex.
And Roe v. Wade forbids both.
You can be completely prolife AND fully defend a woman's medical rights and domain over her body. The reasoning is thus: The fetus is a separate human individual from the moment of conception because it is the offspring of two human individuals and has a unique genetic makeup, neither the Mother's nor the Father's. Therefore, the fetus is accorded complete natural rights, albeit supervised by capable adults until the age of majority. So in any decision that would affect the rights of the fetus, including it's right to life, its rights must be considered and respected, just as any decision that would affect the rights of the mother must take into consideration her rights. A grey area of overlap would be the life of the mother being threatened by the pregnancy. This anymore is seldom an issue due to technology, but may still occur rarely. I think in such a case, the fetus should be induced birthed and then every effort should be made to save its life once birthed.
Yeah. From my perspective, ending a pregnancy at any time should be a woman's prerogative as long as she wants to forfeit her right to raise the baby. Also, the "abortion" then, should be a live birth, and the doctors involved in the procedure should do their best to save the life of that baby, regardless of when it's removed from the mother (this would encourage medical advancement in this area, I think).
If you want the right to raise a child, you better show willingness to carry it to term. Otherwise I don't think you can be trusted, and, after we save the life of your premature infant (if we can), you should never be able to see it again. Some rich folks can adopt it and give it the life you couldn't or didn't want to give it.
Again, I believe in a woman's right to carry or not carry a baby. But I don't think she has the right to automatically determine if that baby currently living inside her should live or die once she aborts it. I know it's unlikely now that babies born younger than 24 weeks will survive given our current understanding and technology, but there are so many people out there who want to adopt it just doesn't make sense not to try to save them.
The abortion question is not one of viability. It is a question of the creation of a new life. Once conception occurs, it is no longer a question of the mother's rights alone. The new human life has the same inalienable rights as the mother.
There are plenty of contraceptive methods and devices. You can be sterilized if you wish. Either of those choices are yours too make as you wish. Don't try to frame those who storage up for the unborn as anti-choice. Science and common sense will tell you that if you are pregnant, you've already MADE YOUR CHOICE.
Agreed. Which is why SCOTUS drafted a compromise in Roe v. Wade. Human rights are human rights. Sometimes they come into conflict. When they do, a reasonable compromise must be struck to avoid extremism.
If you have 2 humans with equal rights, and at the end of the compromise one is dead and the other alive, I fail to see where the "compromise" is.
But you don't have "2 humans with equal rights." You have hundreds of millions of them. Nor is there an "end of the compromise." It's a give and take, legally. One side doesn't want any abortions to happen and the other side doesn't want government to have any say over someone else's body. So they strike a deal that neither of them will be happy about, but they can both live with.
In my opinion, Roe v. Wade is a pretty good deal. Viability is a line that I think we've proven that people can live with. Even if neither side is especially happy about it. I sincerely believe that if we veered too far from that in either direction that we wouldn't like the outcome.
I know for me, if in my home state, they were giving abortions out in the 3rd trimester, reaching up in there and cutting the spinal cord of a viable baby simply because it hadn't been born yet..I'd literally be burning down abortion clinics.
Push too far in the opposite direction, and I'm not sure what people on the other side of the issue would do, but I'm sure I wouldn't like that either. Sometimes a lose-lose compromise is the only way.
I understand your point, but my view is different than yours. I view our God-given inalienable rights as ABSOLUTE. They are above other humans' wants or desires. You cannot terminate another human because you desire it. Do I believe that making abortion illegal will end all abortions? Absolutely not. But the government should not be in the position of vacating God-given inalienable rights for some for the convenience of others. Clandestine abortions will always be available " I know a guy", but parties to that kind of arrangement are aware that their actions break both man's and God's law. "If women are going to get abortions anyway, let's make them legal so they are safe". If I decide to draw down on a drug dealer on a nearby corner, should I have government protection so that he cannot shoot back? To make it safe? Or is my action action to kill him illegal? Are his rights different because he is post-birth? My stand is that his rights are the same as mine and any other human pre or post birth. Sorry, no amount of debate will change my belief that all humans are created equal .
And THAT is what we are discussing here.
Yeah but privacy and bodily autonomy IS an inalienable God-given right. I see that to bolster your point you're trying to reduce THAT inalienable right to a human want or desire but it's not very persuasive. I have an inalienable God-given right not to put a vaccine in my body if I don't want to, no matter how many people my decision may impact, including if it kills them. That's the same right being asserted here in this discussion. When rights come into conflict in this way we as a society don't just throw one right completely out the window. We compromise. Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, was an excellent compromise. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Viability seems like a good line to me.
It seems we agree about most everything, except when life BEGINS. Your stated position is "viability", meaning as you use it, unassisted survival outside the womb. But as someone else here pointed out, even toddlers cannot survive on their own. Are they not "viable"? My position is that life BEGINS at conception. Either that new human exists, or it does not. ALL humans have the same rights. Simple. Clear. No questions about "how human is this person". If you do not want children, do whatever you want to prevent sperm meeting egg. But if you engage in risky behavior, you must bear the consequences.
BTW, I would like to thank you for the intelligent discourse. I love discussing ideas, even if we don't agree, and never will. GAW simply has the best community I have ever found online. Peace.
Prove viability earlier than 24 weeks?
A toddler isn't viable. Stick them in the middle of a field and come back a week later, let me know if they were viable or not.
You're not going to find a "viable" human much under the age of 15 who can handle this world without assistance.
No different than the toddler example. The parents of the toddler have no autonomy when it comes to their child's safety and welfare, if they let it die they're going to prison. Whether before 24 weeks or after 24 months, the timing of the murder is completely arbitrary.
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade defined viability as the ability to survive outside the womb, not the ability to survive outside the womb with no other human assistance. Obviously we're social creatures. We need each other to survive. But we hold the right to privacy and bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. Every bit as important as the right to life. It's why we feel ok using deadly force against invaders trying to take our land or trying to enslave us. It doesn't matter if they want to kill us or not, because freedom is worth dying, and killing for.
Again you're ignoring realities about killing here in order to bolster a weak point. You know that not every killing is a murder. When a soldier kills another soldier in battle, it's not murder. When a father kills an intruder in his home, it's not murder. We define what types of killings constitute murder. Now, you clearly think that the moment a sperm enters an egg that nobody else's rights matter anymore, and frankly I agree with you in principle, but when I think about what this country would be like if we adopted that precedent, that the right to life immediately subordinates all other rights well...just think about that for a minute and tell me you'd be ok with that. Because I don't think you would either.
It was completely legal to kill Jews in Nazi Germany.
Completely legal.
Right?
Certainly. Like John McCain.
Worse than the industry of selling baby parts?
Name "all other rights" subordinated. I'm certain you have a long list, because it sure sounds like it.
But I'll be surprised if you name one.
I think so. I mean...I don't think the general citizenry were encouraged to kill them, but report them, so they could be arrested and deported--I was under the impression that Germans by and large had not idea the Jews were actually being murdered, do you know otherwise? Either way though I'm not sure I get your point.
Exactly.
That's quite the strawman. I never said I was in favor of selling baby parts.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Could you maybe rephrase your request?
It's no strawman at all. Women have abortions at planned parenthood, where they harvest baby parts for sale.
There is no abortion-on-demand of whatever demographic baby ages you think is appropriate to kill that won't get sold as body parts.
To say you don't want to live in a world where women can't have abortions prior to a certain age is exactly equivalent to saying you are ok living in a world where the bodies of those babies are harvested and sold.
You said this:
I'm asking what you meant by that.
I can imagine what you meant by that, as follows:
etc.
But I don't know that that's what you meant, so I asked you specifically what rights you think are being subordinated by a woman being denied having an abortion.
It's a strawman in this discussion. I'm aware what Planned Parenthood has done, and they should be prosecuted for it, as should anyone else who does it. Insisting on this point makes me question if this is actually a good faith discussion. It's certainly not encouraging.
See now that makes me think you aren't even reading my replies. I've been pretty clear on what rights are in conflict on this issue. The question, as it was raised in Roe v. Wade, is at what point society is obligated to step in and override a woman's right to medical privacy and autonomy. If you think the right time for that is conception, I don't think you've thought it through very well. I think if you do you'll see what a dangerous precedent that would set, not just for the abortion issue, but for other issues as well--namely: vaccines.
Again, I see that you think a baby's right to be protected and cared for should begin at conception, but I don't. At least not as far as society and laws are concerned. I don't know how much more clear I can make it that I think Roe v. Wade represents a good compromise on the matter. As I've said several times already: I don't want to live in a world where viable babies are killed simply because they haven't exited the birth canal yet, but I also don't want to live in a world where we make what's happening in women's bodies our constant business the moment they become sexually active. I think there needs to be a window there where they maintain their privacy and autonomy and I think Roe v. Wade provides a good window.
It's not about the law. It's not about arrests. It's about your "feels". Remember?
You said you didn't want to live in a world where women can't conditionally have abortions.
You have the "feels" to care about women being inconvenienced but you don't have the "feels" to prevent body part sales, because YOU aren't discussing in good faith if you want to pretend that those two don't go hand in hand.
And that's a want you place above selling baby parts. What you're wishing for is a world where women could have early abortions but those aborted babies aren't sold for medical science or sacrificed to Moloch.
The heavy-hitting voices and machinery behind allowing abortions, even with restrictions, is going to be profit driven from sales from baby parts. That makes your desire for a world that allows conditional abortions but disallows sales of baby parts impossible, but you won't concede that point.
I agree with this unpopular opinion also. I think in general 12 weeks would be a fair compromise and I think so for many reasons including that personally I still view an embryo of that stage as something capable of being a human (like an egg or sperm) and not really a human quite yet.
Agree with your unpopular opinion. Heck, limit abortion to the first trimester for all I care.
People love to take extreme stances on this topic and then circle jerk themselves in an echo chamber... debates on this always end up a shitshow.
This is really going to suck for the breeders that think abortion is just another method of birth control.