Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Ajax, as it was you who introduced the phrase "late abortion," you should at least define it. The gestational length of a normal pregnancy generally ranges between 38 and 42 weeks. So, when is an abortion a "late abortion?"Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:16 amLink the bill, Xanax. You know, since you made the claim.
- Doc
(a) GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
…
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
And you won’t find anywhere except in the imaginations of people who swallow propaganda instead of taking the time to find out the facts. All this bill would do is enact the holding of Casey into federal law. Casey changed the trimester basis of Roe into a single point — viability. Before viability, the states cannot prohibit abortions or impose unduly burdensome requirements. After viability, the only limitation on the states’ power is when the life our health of the pregnant woman is at stake.canpakes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 6:55 am.
Here’s a link to the bill -
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr37 ... 755pcs.pdf
Note pages 18 and 19, and these portions:
(a) GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
…
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
I don’t see anything here to support ajax’s claim that ‘late term abortions’, whatever that means, are allowed for any reason. The exclusion listed here are the same as currently exist for when the mother’s life is endangered. And there’s no exclusion for rape or incest after the point of viability.
Nobody is forcing poor women to have children they can't afford now. They still do, and in far more quantity that women of means. . The only real solution to overpopulation is economic growth. If women can't find good jobs, they're going to have more babies.The difference is we won’t be forcing poor women to have children they can’t afford.
ajax18 wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:11 pmNobody is forcing poor women to have children they can't afford now. They still do, and in far more quantity that women of means. . The only real solution to overpopulation is economic growth. If women can't find good jobs, they're going to have more babies.The difference is we won’t be forcing poor women to have children they can’t afford.
Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.ajax18 wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:11 pmNobody is forcing poor women to have children they can't afford now. They still do, and in far more quantity that women of means. . The only real solution to overpopulation is economic growth. If women can't find good jobs, they're going to have more babies.The difference is we won’t be forcing poor women to have children they can’t afford.
Birth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.
That doesn't respond at all to my point about women being forced to bear children against their will. A few years ago, a study found that 1/4 of women had an abortion before age 45. That's lots of women who chose not to give birth.ajax18 wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 8:21 pmBirth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.