There are circumstances where continued pregnancy can kill the mother. In such cases, yes, abortions are essential health care. The fact that such circumstances are uncommon do not make them any less real.
Men are in no position to talk about abortion - full stop.
If a man wants to be part of a ground-breaking lab experiment that tries to get him pregnant and carry a child to term via a natural birth, then maybe at that time he can talk about abortion.
Until then, I really don’t give a shit what someone with a penis has to say on the subject.
That’s cold, dude.
Only the elderly and those with underlying conditions are at risk. It is known! Trump wants the younger, healthy people to start working again, because you have to be over 60 or already suffering from an underlying condition to get a bad case of the virus. Maybe that WAS true, I don’t think it is any more. Hospitals and families are reluctant to discuss deaths and hospitalizations, due to privacy laws and social stigma I imagine, but more and more I’m hearing of younger people being increasingly more ill and requiring medical intervention and even dying. Thinking that we can lock up senior citizens and have the rest of the country carry on may be more wrong than Trump knows.
Gaggle of Republicants think that the Coronavirus aid will make all those proles an even more irresponsible lot of scofflaws.
Riiiiiight, those crazy drafting errors (oops!)
(Hate it when that happens.)
Meanwhile, an unnamed reporter nicely sums it up:
And of course to rebut, with this rich piece of down-home, greenish calf’s diarrhea from Ben Sasse (R. Neb.):
And of course none of those people in said coffee shop would never ever have to worry about unemployment or getting sick. You see: they’re too chosen, or something.
Ya, HELL NO!
So let me see if I have this straight. GOP congresspeople believe that, if we don’t extend aid to people who lose their jobs because of virus measures, that businesses won’t actually lay them off? That businesses will just continue to pay people to do nothing while they have zero or greatly reduced revenue coming in?
Or do they believe people are laying themselves off out of choice, not because their employers are closed or crippled?
Personal responsibility = virus, schmirus, get back to work you slackers.
And as I’ve seen pointed out in multiple places - you don’t get unemployment if you quit. So Lindsey’s hypothetical nurse isn’t going to quit her job with the increased odds of getting Covid-19 to sit at home and enjoy $600 a week, because she won’t be eligible.
They ought to be giving her an extra $1200 a week to stay on the job, then, and free health insurance for life. But no – she knew what she signed up for when she took the job, right?
Basically Sasse and others are exposing how THEY would look at the world. This suggests the only reason *they *have, in their own lives, hustled and strived is because of ambition for wealth and power; but that if they were in the position of being stuck as a lowly minion, *they would *be looking to do maximum leeching off the productive members of the economy.
Besides, there’s an easy solution for those who think unemployment compensation is so plush that people will rather stay on it than come back to the company. Increase worker pay.
But the way they completely leave aside that if you willingly quit or choose not to seek new employment, you do not qualify is no accident. It’s part of a systematic project to establish in the base’s consciousness that ALL of the Safety Net, whether vested or not (and remember, Unemployment and SocSec are PAID by taxes on the employment transaction, they are not gifts) is just undeserved welfare for lazy slackers, and if you end up suffering in destitution well just tough cookies, that’s life, Jesus will take care of you after you die. Remember, these are people not just out to undo Obama or the Great Society, but out to undo the New Deal and if possible the Progressive Era.
Let’s get this right out of the way. It was NEVER true.
The intimation that it only affects older people is based on false premises. Most of the ICU beds occupied for the virus currently are used by people under the age of 65.
Based on what we have seen over the last 3 months, it IS true that older people and people with underlying conditions appear to be at GREATER risk for serious symptoms or death. This has been consistently true.
Somehow, this became conflated (in typical human fashion) with the idea that being younger or having no underlying conditions posed NO risk for serious complications or even death. Lower risk is NOT the same as no risk but it has been treated this way by a lot of people.
So even if (and these numbers are totally out of the air for purposes of demonstration) that not being older or underlying complications poses a 0.1% risk of death or conditions serious enough to require hospitalization, 0.1% is NOT 0. The reason you see more stories of younger people dying is there are now MORE infected. 0.1% of 100 people is 1/10 of a person, i.e. no news stories about it. 0.1% of 100000 people is 100 people, i.e. you’ll start hearing stories about them as more people are affected. And, of course, they can still spread the virus.
We already know people are bad at math. Unfortunately, this time it may cost some people their lives.
If abortion was always considered a necessary medical procedure then the human race would die out when no more births occur. 
It should be uncontroversial that abortion is necessary when the mother’s life is at risk. Anyone but the most hardcore anti-abortion zealot should accept that.
Whether or not it’s necessary because a woman does not want to be pregnant is trickier. I understand the belief that if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. I have two daughters and I remember what that was like for their mothers. It’s a massive life-changing experience to carry a child and give birth and a woman should not have to go through that involuntarily.
But from a medical perspective, giving birth to a child is a natural process, so an abortion from that angle does not seem like a medical “necessity”. Not in most cases. So to me it depends on how you are defining it.
But we intervene to prevent many other natural processes from irrevocably altering a person’s life, right?
Check out this ad about the number of Corona Virus cases over time and Trumps response to it. This one needs to be aired constantly!
What’s truly scary about it is it clearly shows the exponential rise of cases. That Trump is even remotely thinking we’re going back to work in 2 weeks is a fools dream.
Does anyone know if Fox News is still telling their core demographic of people over 65 that they should sacrifice themselves so that the kids can go out to bars and get drunk again?
How is this going over with the older generation? Are they happy to die in order to keep the DOW above water?
And lest we forget, Best Buys, sporting goods stores, and Hobby Lobbys are apparently essential businesses. Maybe they have a point, but if so, it’s not exactly a stretch to say legal abortions are as necessary as a medical procedure, if not more so, than those as essential public businesses.
The accusation that some officials are taking advantage of the situation is not entirely unfounded.
Wait until it’s not just one 30-something who goes to the ER deprived of oxygen but scores of them at the same time. They’ll end up in waiting rooms with all of the other 40, 50, 60, and 70-somethings. I don’t care how old you are: struggle to breathe long enough, and you die.
[quote=“Frazzled, post:253, topic:850078”]
Check out this ad about the number of Corona Virus cases over time and Trumps response to it. This one needs to be aired constantly!
What’s truly scary about it is it clearly shows the exponential rise of cases. That Trump is even remotely thinking we’re going back to work in 2 weeks is a fools dream.
What bigger fool?!
Do we? Do you have an example of an equivalent procedure done as a medical necessity? I don’t know of an example, I’m legitimately curious what you have in mind.
I did a deeper, county-by-county analysis.
Current fatality rate:
Red-land: 1.37%
Blue-land: 1.27%