House passes 20-week abortion ban

Full story: Feministing

Yesterday evening the House of Representatives passed the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," a ban on legal abortions 20 weeks or more after fertilization based on dubious evidence that fetuses can feel pain during the second trimester.
Comments
401 - 420 of 426 Comments Last updated Jul 20, 2013

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#410
Jul 15, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
What state can she have it removed at any time?
States that have no time limit (though they may have limits on who can perform, where they can be performed, and most states ban the one procedure known as "partial birth")

AK
CO
DC, yes, I do realize it's not an actual state.
MS
NH
NJ
NM
OR
VT
WV
Dan

Wilmington, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#411
Jul 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's separate."
Not until it is no longer attached to her body, using her body and inside her body.
"Different organism". YOUR definition says "different organism"."
Which does not mean different species.
Still, again, YOU brought the term parasitism to the conversation, claiming it means different species. I merely corrected you, with proof that it doesn't necessarily have to be a different species.
"The means its not the same organism."
Again, a moot point.
"You said "Might as well be an appendage". It's not an appendage."
I didn't say it was. I said, and here is the part you left off, GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT CONSCIOUS OR AWARE, it may as well be an appendage.
Still, it does fit one of the definitions FOR the word appendage. Just as it fits many definitions of the word parasite.
"It's not a parasite."
I'm not the one who used the word. Still, it does fit many biological/medical/scientific definitions for the word. Are we going by definitions, or not. Make up your mind.
"It's not part of her body, the fetus isn't her body and it's not a parasite. She created it."
A moot point, since she has the legal and moral right to remove anything from her body, whether it's considered part of her body or not.
Post #383 from you: "parasitical"-first appearance.



Dan

Wilmington, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#412
Jul 15, 2013
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
States that have no time limit (though they may have limits on who can perform, where they can be performed, and most states ban the one procedure known as "partial birth")
AK
CO
DC, yes, I do realize it's not an actual state.
MS
NH
NJ
NM
OR
VT
WV
So, are you telling me there's no statutory limit, rather it's limited (if it is) as to who can do it or where?

How does this jive with the "partial birth" restriction?

I don't get it (seriously)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#413
Jul 15, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"So, are you telling me there's no statutory limit, rather it's limited (if it is) as to who can do it or where?"

I'm telling you there is no time limit. Who can perform them, yes. Where they must be performed after a certain point, yes. Time limit? No.

"How does this jive with the "partial birth" restriction?
I don't get it (seriously)"

That is a ban on one procedure only, not a time. There are other abortion procedures that it's perfectly legal to perform at the time the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure would be.

Maybe you don't get it, because you don't realize that the procedure in question is simply one of several late term abortion procedures which are meant to be done after 20 weeks. The name makes it sound like they wait until the woman is in labor, which is misleading. I suspect deliberately so, to stir up emotions regarding it, but that is simply my opinion. There is no evidence ANYONE has an abortion after they've already gone into labor.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#414
Jul 15, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Post #383 from you: "parasitical"-first appearance.
No, you're right, that was me on this thread. I got you confused with someone else on another. My apologies.
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#415
Jul 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Any woman too drunk, or high, or stupid enough not to get the abortion before the 20th week can just go on and have it. They need to give it up for adoption, because they are definitely to stupid to raise it.
Deborah

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, bringing up the Nazis. Pathetic. You do realize that they made abortion illegal for Aryan women, but forced it on others. They took away their CHOICE. You have far more in common with them than I do.
Again, Richards is nothing to me. All she is, is the face of PP, which I have nothing to do with, and which forms no part of my position.
And when I say I've never suggested anyone have an abortion, that INCLUDES Topix. Funny thing, though, I've seen MANY on your side tell people they are arguing with that they should have been aborted.
I am not a pro-abort. I'm sorry to steal your thunder, but that is a fact. I am pro-choice. Standing for civil rights is all I have to do to prove that. I do not have to fit YOUR erroneous definitions.
That doesn't answer my questions, which were: "Have you denounced abortions of healthy babies who are viable outside the womb? Have you denounced post-birth abortion (as Obama and Richards and Planned Parenthood refuse to do), and have you advocated for saving babies born alive after botched abortions (as the entire U. S. Senate and House did in voice votes for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act)? Standing publicly against those barbaric acts would be a good and humane place for anyone to start who isn't a pro-abort, as you claim not to be."

You say you've never suggested or urged anyone to have an abortion. So far, so good. What are you doing to stop the carnage against viable, healthy unborn -- and born -- babies?

German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actively opposed the Holocaust and its perpetrators, wrote, "“We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”

Deborah

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#419
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand by RvW.
Are you saying that you stand by RvW?
It's hard for me to stand by it when Harry Blackmun himself regretted having considered it:

In a July 1987 letter to then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Blackmun confirmed the unique circumstances under which the Court decided to hear Roe and Doe:

" I remember that the old Chief [Warren Burger] appointed a screening committee, chaired by Potter [Stewart], to select those cases that could (it was assumed) be adequately heard by a Court of seven. I was on that little committee. We did not do a good job. Potter pressed for Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to be heard and did so in the misapprehension that they involved nothing more than an application of Younger v. Harris [a 1971 Supreme Court decision concerning the application state- federal procedural rules]. How wrong we were."

[Source: Harry Blackmun Papers, Library of congress, Box 151, folder 3, and Box 1407, folder 13, Rehnquist letter to HAB, July 16, 1987 original,
with onion skin of Harry Blackmun (HAB) reply of July 20, 1987.]

Since the subject you've chosen is "Supreme Court cases on abortion," I have three questions about Supreme Court decisions:

1. Do you take any current SCOTUS decision as a final arbiter of both legality and morality? If so, then if we were debating slavery on a Topix forum during the years Dred Scott was the law of the land, you'd be saying -- a la Roe v Wade -- "Dred Scott is the law. A slave is property, not a citizen. My property, my choice."

2. Does it bother you that Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton were based on outright lies that the plaintiffs' legal counsels knew about or made up when they were presenting their plaintiffs' cases to the Supreme Court? Norma McCorvey, who's now a dedicated pro-lifer, admitted she had never been raped and that her attorneys knew that fact. Sandra Cano, also now a dedicated pro-lifer, wrote, "In the case that lawyers created, it was claimed that I went to a hospital to seek an abortion. I never did that – I would never do that. Doe v. Bolton was fiction, a case based on lies about me that I didn’t know were being told. After the Supreme Court announced the Roe and Doe decisions and I realized that I was Doe, I wanted to set the record straight. I wanted to clear my name. But no one would believe that I was Mary Doe. Having the records legally unsealed proved difficult for a “little person” like me with no education and no advocate."

3. If Roe v Wade is a law whose legality (and morality?) you tout, must you not also accept the Supreme Court's findings in an equal law, Gonzales v Carhart, in which the Court found that "ethical and moral concerns," including an interest in fetal life, represent "substantial" state interests, which legally can be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after viability?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Deborah wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't answer my questions, which were: "Have you denounced abortions of healthy babies who are viable outside the womb? Have you denounced post-birth abortion (as Obama and Richards and Planned Parenthood refuse to do), and have you advocated for saving babies born alive after botched abortions (as the entire U. S. Senate and House did in voice votes for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act)? Standing publicly against those barbaric acts would be a good and humane place for anyone to start who isn't a pro-abort, as you claim not to be."
You say you've never suggested or urged anyone to have an abortion. So far, so good. What are you doing to stop the carnage against viable, healthy unborn -- and born -- babies?
German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actively opposed the Holocaust and its perpetrators, wrote, "“We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”
Sorry, but I don't have to support, or denounce anything that you think I should in order to be pro-choice.

A "pro-abort" would be someone who thinks all pregnancies should end in abortion, or someone who forces an abortion. Period.

I am pro-choice. Which means that I support a woman's right to make her own CHOICE regarding her own pregnancy. And that's all I need to be.

YOU don't get to define what is and is not my position for me. Neither do Richards or Obama, who mean as little to my position as your wants, bigotry and biases do. In other words, nothing.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421
Jul 19, 2013
 
Deborah wrote:
That doesn't answer my questions, which were: "Have you denounced abortions of healthy babies who are viable outside the womb? Have you denounced post-birth abortion (as Obama and Richards and Planned Parenthood refuse to do), and have you advocated for saving babies born alive after botched abortions (as the entire U. S. Senate and House did in voice votes for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act)?
Here's a little clue for you, Debbie; NO ONE has to "answer" or "explain" anything to you or any other member of the anti-choice crowd. Bitner has stated repeatedly that she is PRO-CHOICE, which simply means, "let EACH woman decide." So, whatever that woman decides, it is HER decision, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's.

Seriously, are those four simple words too hard for you to understand?@@
Kelly

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

If a woman can't decide if she wants the child by 20 weeks, she should have taken precautions. It is time to stop thinking it is all about woman's rights. What about the fetus rights?
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#423
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a little clue for you, Debbie; NO ONE has to "answer" or "explain" anything to you or any other member of the anti-choice crowd. Bitner has stated repeatedly that she is PRO-CHOICE, which simply means, "let EACH woman decide." So, whatever that woman decides, it is HER decision, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's.
Seriously, are those four simple words too hard for you to understand?@@
Then why reply to her?????????? Society has us all dragged into it, therefore, you want laws to maintain the right to abortion, you owe an answer. Otherwise, if you can't take the heat, stay outta the kitchen.......

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#424
Jul 19, 2013
 
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why reply to her?????????? Society has us all dragged into it, therefore, you want laws to maintain the right to abortion, you owe an answer. Otherwise, if you can't take the heat, stay outta the kitchen.......
No, you've dragged yourselves into it. We don't need laws to maintain the right to make our own medical decisions. We just need busybodies like you to stop trying to make laws that RESTRICT that right, for the SOLE purpose of making it as hard as possible for us to do so.
fingiswold

Newark, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#425
Jul 19, 2013
 
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why reply to her?????????? Society has us all dragged into it, therefore, you want laws to maintain the right to abortion, you owe an answer. Otherwise, if you can't take the heat, stay outta the kitchen.......
maybe offer some criticism to debbie, moron, instead of her critics. just a suggestion from someone smarter and more honest than you..
Deborah

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#426
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I don't have to support, or denounce anything that you think I should in order to be pro-choice.
A "pro-abort" would be someone who thinks all pregnancies should end in abortion, or someone who forces an abortion. Period.
I am pro-choice. Which means that I support a woman's right to make her own CHOICE regarding her own pregnancy. And that's all I need to be.
YOU don't get to define what is and is not my position for me. Neither do Richards or Obama, who mean as little to my position as your wants, bigotry and biases do. In other words, nothing.
Reductio ad absurdum. No one believes all pregnancies should end in abortion.

But abortion supporters (like Obama, Cecile Richards, and a few Topix zealots) who wouldn't place even a single constraint on abortion while tacitly approving (by their silence) any abortion at any time for any reason are ... pro-aborts.

I'll find common ground with New Yorkers. Even in blue-state, high-abortion-rate New York, New Yorkers overwhelmingly favor common-sense restrictions on abortion:

87% favor providing pregnant mothers information about options before they make a decision;

78% approve of a 24-hour waiting period;

76% approve parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion;

68% approve of providing free medical care to mothers carrying their pregnancy to term, and

86% favor regulating abortion clinics as strictly as other medical facilities.

http://nyc41percent.com/Docs/NY_Statewide_01-...
Deborah

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#427
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a little clue for you, Debbie; NO ONE has to "answer" or "explain" anything to you or any other member of the anti-choice crowd. Bitner has stated repeatedly that she is PRO-CHOICE, which simply means, "let EACH woman decide." So, whatever that woman decides, it is HER decision, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's.
Seriously, are those four simple words too hard for you to understand?@@
Welcome to the small minority, whose "take no unborn prisoners" zealotry is repugnant to the vast majority of Americans. No abortion zealot can logically or morally justify late-term abortions on viable, healthy babies.

In Texas, a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll found 62 percent of people support a ban of late-term abortions after five months. Nationwide, even a recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that 59 percent support a ban after 20 weeks; 30 percent would permit it. A Gallup poll late last year found that 64 percent think abortion should be illegal after 12 weeks.

"Let each woman decide" means, among other barbarities, that a woman whose viable baby is inadvertently born when the abortionist botches the abortion *still* gets to "decide" that the newborn baby will be killed.

Thus saith, among other pro-aborts, President Obama and Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#428
Jul 20, 2013
 
Deborah wrote:
<quoted text>
Reductio ad absurdum. No one believes all pregnancies should end in abortion.
But abortion supporters (like Obama, Cecile Richards, and a few Topix zealots) who wouldn't place even a single constraint on abortion while tacitly approving (by their silence) any abortion at any time for any reason are ... pro-aborts.
I'll find common ground with New Yorkers. Even in blue-state, high-abortion-rate New York, New Yorkers overwhelmingly favor common-sense restrictions on abortion:
87% favor providing pregnant mothers information about options before they make a decision;
78% approve of a 24-hour waiting period;
76% approve parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion;
68% approve of providing free medical care to mothers carrying their pregnancy to term, and
86% favor regulating abortion clinics as strictly as other medical facilities.
http://nyc41percent.com/Docs/NY_Statewide_01-...
Where did you pull that document?

And guess what? I've SEEN posters on Topix who DO think all pregnancies should end in abortion. They DO exist.

I've ALSO seen supposed "pro-life" posters tell someone PC "you know, it's a shame your mother didn't abort YOU".

You are wrong. I am pro-choice, not "pro-abort". Period.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#429
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

CBOW wrote:
Then why reply to her?????????? Society has us all dragged into it, therefore, you want laws to maintain the right to abortion, you owe an answer. Otherwise, if you can't take the heat, stay outta the kitchen.......
NO, moron, it is the ANTI-CHOICERS who "dragged society into it" by trying to interfere with women's sexual and reproductive decisions; specifically a woman's deciding NOT to reproduce by having an abortion. Debbie is just another one of the anti-choice fanatics who thinks she and the other members of her club have the "right" to FORCE women to gestate unwanted pregnancies. I have no respect for her, and I don't owe her (or you either) ANYTHING.

Debbie can spew her anti-choice OPINIONS all she wants. But guess what, that's all they are; OPINIONS. And NO ONE has to "answer to" her or any other anti-choice poster here.
Deborah

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#430
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you pull that document?
And guess what? I've SEEN posters on Topix who DO think all pregnancies should end in abortion. They DO exist.
I've ALSO seen supposed "pro-life" posters tell someone PC "you know, it's a shame your mother didn't abort YOU".
You are wrong. I am pro-choice, not "pro-abort". Period.
Did you overlook the link? McLaughlin and Associates' January 2013 poll of New Yorkers. http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/5

I don't spend enough time on Topix to have seen anyone express an opinion that all pregnancies should end in abortions. You're here a lot; maybe you could provide a link to such a post.

When you can voice even ONE abortion-at-any-time-for-any-r eason exception (including the two I've twice asked you about: abortions on healthy, viable babies and post-birth abortions), then we can begin to take seriously your claim about being "pro-choice."
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#431
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Deborah wrote:
"Let each woman decide" means, among other barbarities, that a woman whose viable baby is inadvertently born when the abortionist botches the abortion *still* gets to "decide" that the newborn baby will be killed.
Thus saith, among other pro-aborts, President Obama and Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards.
Last time I checked, Debbie, killing a newborn baby is ILLEGAL. Now that the TX house has passed this draconian 20-week ban, it probably won't be long before the anti-choice male politicians will try banning abortion after only SIX weeks.

I'm wondering how long it will be before some of the more extremists in the TX House will try banning certain forms of contraception too. Some of these goofballs simply can't deal with the idea that motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and that a woman DOESN'T have to be a mindless baby producer for the church OR the state.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••