DescentBB

....yeah, you read that right. The Speaker abruptly pulled a misogynistic Abortion Ban bill off the floor, tabled indefinitely, yesterday. Apparently, he was about to lose the votes of most of the 22 women GOP members in the House, and had the good sense to realize exactly HOW bad that would have looked to the GOP. Is is just savvy politics? Sure, but that is the one positive I've always gotten from Boehner: he is a man who understands how they system is supposed to work. That, and he has a killer tan!

and why exactly did he pull the bill off the table?

not on John Boehner's personal rolodex, as you may suspect, I can only go from reportage. It seems that he was told that 18 of the 22 women in the GOP house caucus would not only vote, but speak, against it. That would have been a PR disaster, when the GOP is clearly trying to show a more friendly, less radical face after kicking the Tea Party to the curb in the last election cycle(which, though a GOP triumph, was a serious Tea Party loss). Everything they've said and done since Jan 1 has been aimed at a show of inclusiveness, which time will tell whether that is show or substance. I, for one, hope it isn't show, and that we can get to real debate over real solutions for the future.

the report I heard was that they would vote against it NOT because of what it was saying but when it was presented. they did not want that to be the first piece of legislation presented by the new congress.

on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, no less. It will be interesting to see if they back it later, or try and sneak it into another bill. I'll congratulate Boehner again if he has the sense to hold the ground.

So slick you approve of late term killing of fully formed and life capable fetus's. Sad.

Here we go again. The 4926th abortion debate this forum has seen

woodchip wrote:So slick you approve of late term killing of fully formed and life capable fetus's. Sad.

no, but at 20 weeks, the nervous system is nowhere near complete, nor life-capable. Anyone with a physiology background knows that. My big
hangup is the absolute lack of exceptions, really. To force people to report rape and incest(far easier said than done in many cases) and the
disregard for potential fatality to the mother of carrying to term is obscene, and an imposition upon women.

note, that I did NOT slam the House for passing a bunch of other abortion measures, all of which will be vetoed.

I really don't want to go down the abortion debate route, which CUDA noted has been beaten to death. However, on the specific topic of later term abortion limits with NO exceptions, one should read this( and then seek out the experiences of other families and women)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellnes ... ar-AA8uqmx

callmeslick wrote:...at 20 weeks, the nervous system is nowhere near complete, nor life-capable. Anyone with a physiology background knows that.

Not quite true. It's rare, but children born at 20 weeks have survived.

But more to the point: Let's move it out to 24 weeks, at which point it's roughly 50%-50% that a child born could survive outside the womb. Would that change your stance?

callmeslick wrote:My big hangup is the absolute lack of exceptions, really.

Okay, let's say the exceptions you named (rape, incest, life of the mother) were added to the legislation. Would that change your stance?

The problem I have here is the distinction between a true medical emergency and an elective procedure.

Performing an abortion to save a women’s life is something that can’t be disallowed by some abortion law.

The idea that you need “exceptions” for this kind of situation is silly, just plain silly, what…you think a doctor is not going to do everything possible to save a women’s life, just because some idiots in Washington made a law.

Shame on any doctor…they take an oath.

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...at 20 weeks, the nervous system is nowhere near complete, nor life-capable. Anyone with a physiology background knows that.

Not quite true. It's rare, but children born at 20 weeks have survived.

But more to the point: Let's move it out to 24 weeks, at which point it's roughly 50%-50% that a child born could survive outside the womb. Would that change your stance?

yes and no. My whole 'stance', as you put it, is this: a woman and her physician should be able to make the choice at any point, based solely upon medical threat to the mother first, with viability of the fetus coming second. Any plan that restricts that choice is wrong, both morally and medically.

Okay, let's say the exceptions you named (rape, incest, life of the mother) were added to the legislation. Would that change your stance?

yes, I've always maintained as much. Although, I get a bit uneasy making ethical decisions for others, especially for women as a male.

Spidey wrote:The problem I have here is the distinction between a true medical emergency and an elective procedure.

Performing an abortion to save a women’s life is something that can’t be disallowed by some abortion law.

that's most of my objection. Still, the rape/incest stuff may not strictly speak to life or death of the mother, but it DOES speak to the psychological
trauma that will affect mother and potential child forever.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So slick you approve of late term killing of fully formed and life capable fetus's. Sad.

no, but at 20 weeks, the nervous system is nowhere near complete, nor life-capable. Anyone with a physiology background knows that.

Except the bill would have prevented abortions beyond 20 weeks...not limit them to 20 and under. Stop trying to be disingenuous.

callmeslick wrote:...a woman and her physician should be able to make the choice at any point, based solely upon medical threat to the mother first, with viability of the fetus coming second. Any plan that restricts that choice is wrong, both morally and medically.

Any restriction is wrong? So your stance is that abortion for any reason at any time should be legal?

[ If that is the case, then your statement that, "my big hangup is the lack of exceptions" is misleading. If you support abortion in every case, then are not only supporting it for the exceptions, you are supporting it for every other possible reason and stage out there. ...You've cited a moral distinction you don't actually hold. ]

------------

On the legislation in the original topic: I personally find it frustrating that pro-life-leaning legislators usually write abortion legislation in terms that make it virtually impossible to pass. Perhaps they want to avoid looking like they are compromising their moral position, to keep voters? Whatever the reason, they've only succeeded in making their position appear more extreme, while missing opportunities to get some reasonable work passed.

callmeslick wrote:

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...at 20 weeks, the nervous system is nowhere near complete, nor life-capable. Anyone with a physiology background knows that.

Not quite true. It's rare, but children born at 20 weeks have survived.

But more to the point: Let's move it out to 24 weeks, at which point it's roughly 50%-50% that a child born could survive outside the womb. Would that change your stance?

yes and no. My whole 'stance', as you put it, is this: a woman and her physician should be able to make the choice at any point, based solely upon medical threat to the mother first, with viability of the fetus coming second. Any plan that restricts that choice is wrong, both morally and medically.

ya so lets commit Murder instead. nothing unethical about that

Dead men tell no tales

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...a woman and her physician should be able to make the choice at any point, based solely upon medical threat to the mother first, with viability of the fetus coming second. Any plan that restricts that choice is wrong, both morally and medically.

Any restriction is wrong? So your stance is that abortion for any reason at any time should be legal?

in the case of life threatening conditions for the mother, yes.

and, I'll leave my comments in this thread at that. CUDA put it well, we've beaten this to death, and repeating it for the 264th time is pointless. If one notices, my OP was around suddenly savvy politics, NOT specifically abortion.

CUDA wrote:Here we go again. The 4926th abortion debate this forum has seen

you're keeping count? I haven't bothered for a good long time.