Ummm, 5 1/2 months is closer to 24 weeks. And the original claim was:
Which is still wrong even if the chances were only 15%.
Wait a second. In post # 209, you said it was 2-10%, now you’re claiming it’s 2-15%. Which is it?
Abortion relates to adoption in that the people radically opposed to abortion who favor adoption are often radically opposed to same sex marriage and gay adoption. They are the rah-rahs (radically religious) of the argument, favoring adoption but only to the “right” people.
And if they get to change the abortion laws, I believe laws supporting gay rights will be their next target.
The topic of this thread is neither adoption nor gay rights.
I know a man who was conceived in rape and he is one of the most viscous and evil people I have ever met, a true sociopath that cannot be changed though therapy. I can think of no reason that he shouldn’t have put down before birth like the rabid dog he is, largely because of the genetic contribution from his father.
Is that survival rate dependent on the immediate or near-immediate intervention of late 20th century neonatal medical care? If so, calling this fetus “viable” needs an asterisk, at least.
I could buy that without such intervention, a fetus/baby under these conditions has a small nonzero chance of survival, for what that’s worth. It’s still a stupid law.
When talking pregnancy 1 month=4 weeks, not 1 calendar month of variable length. This is a standard usage.
If you want to define a 2-15% chance of living after heroic effort as a viable fetus, well, go on with your bad self and let your freak flag fly.
And now it’s Alabama. The legislature passed it. The governor is expected to sign it.
No six-week window here: abortion is illegal any time from conception onward. Docs get up to 99 years in the slammer for performing one, 10 years for attempting to abort one. No exclusions for rape or incest, but there is one for the life of the mother.
I’m not sure what attempting to perform an abortion means in a practical sense: botching one? Setting up for one? A patient making an appointment for an abortion?
If pro-lifers wanted Roe to be overturned, shouldn’t they be trying to make their laws sound as reasonable and un-onerous as possible? By making it so stark, they make it less likely they’d get what they want.
To be clear, this is not a pro-choice position. The entire point of the pro-choice position is that the decision to abort or not is up to the mother, and should not be forced upon them by anyone else.
This, on the other hand, is recommending eugenics. It promotes disabling the ability to procreate because someone would pass on “bad genes.”
It is indeed strange. We had all assumed the laws like the 20 weeks restriction or such were designed to try and weaken the law.
All I can think is that they are worried they’ll lose the conservative majority in the Supreme Court and so are trying to rush the process. They’re afraid they won’t have time to gradually wear it away.
Well, that and maybe their base wasn’t buying their lesser attempts, and so they’re being forced to push through these more radical bills in an attempt to hold onto them. “See, we’re finally doing something about that abortion thing you care so much about! Don’t you want to stick with us, and not vote for those evil, pro-choice Democrats?”
I don’t know about you, but I’m all for adoption by the wrong people. I mean, why make it easy? Let’s throw in a little petty crime, maybe some poverty too. Safe and loving home? Safe OR loving home, I say!
She is talking about the “right” people being heterosexual couples. Are you equating homosexuality with petty crimes or “unsafe” home?
Can a fetus get child support payments if it is a person? Also if the mother is not a citizen but the fetus was conceived in the US does that mean the fetus cannot be deported since if it is a person it must be a US citizen?
The exception for the life of the mother is meaningless. Women will die because of this law.
Link. So a fertilized egg is a person from the moment of conception, as long as it’s inside a woman’s body. But if it’s in a lab, it’s not.
I think we can all figure out what that means.
Now THAT’S an interesting idea and if the law doesn’t get shortly clobbered as unconstitutional, I’d like to see someone explore that avenue.
The rah-rah’s I’ve talk to equate gays raising children with bad parenting, child abuse and pedophilia.
This law was passed by straight, white, conservative men. Big shock there.
Deportation is a federal matter, not a state one. If/when SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, the US Congress would need to pass a law saying a zygote/embryo/fetus cannot be deported in order for that to be the case, and the odds of such a law passing are very slim even if there’s a GOP-majority in both houses again: 1) Nobody’s going to want to force illegal immigrants to get tested for pregnancy and 2) the GOP generally hates that so-called “anchor babies” are American citizens.
True. But if the goal is to get Roe overturned, you don’t want to spend a bunch of money getting it to the Supreme Court only to have them weasel out and upholding the law by saying it is consistent with Roe/Casey.
This way you get a firm answer from the Court. This law will be immediately enjoined, struck down by the District Court and by the Court of Appeals. Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case will be a good early test of their willingness to address Roe/Casey.
It may be premature though. Roberts is very squishy and I don’t trust him as a reliable vote. Kavanaugh is probably still on board, but has shown himself to be very much to the left of Gorsuch.