NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but is it a law that you have to give blood or an organ to one of your dying children once they are outside of your body? No so men will never have to sacrifice anything legally for their child. Then why do women have to sacrifice their whole body?

You would not donate blood to save the life of your dying child? Why not?

What, are you trying to mandate blood donation now? Sounds like it. I guess mandatory organ donation is next?

No, you are speaking specifically about a parent withholding a life saving blood transfusion to their dying child. Why would a parent not give their dying child a lifesaving blood transfusion?

You would not donate some of your blood to your dying child and are offended to be asked to do so.

Yes, because legally it is not required. Just like men aren't legally required to do are their organs to their dying children and you can actually REFUSE life saving treatment for them

Do you understand that parents cannot as a rule donate their adult sized organs to save their ill children? Your argument is medically flawed. What are you trying to prove? You would actively never try to save the life of your own dying child? How is that a good thing?

I’m not PP but you are entirely missing the point. Yes virtually all parents would do anything to save their child. But no MANDATES that this happen. Yet if the “child” is inside a woman the law does mandate - in some states for now - what she does.

The woman has her child developing inside her body; that’s where all children develop, inside their mother’s bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

Biden has done all he can at the executive level.

But you knew that.

Then what will a Harris presidency be able (or even be willing) to do to prevent future Republican administrations and Republican-controlled Congresses to enact this when one finally takes office, either this year or in future years?

Nothing. But you knew that.

Skipped civics, huh?

[Anonymous]

What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree to just stop responding to the troll/PP who doesn’t actually have any good faith arguments regarding abortion or the Comstock issue?

Would these medications be banned outright? Only for abortion?

Of course they will ban the medications. Have you not been paying attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

This is an interesting point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

Don't play stupid.

I was born to an unwed mother. People like you made it hell for her and for me.

She should have has a real choice... not to go through with the pregnancy, or financial support.

She got neither and was forced to abandon me.

ONLY WANTED BABIES SHOULD BE BORN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

Don't play stupid.

I was born to an unwed mother. People like you made it hell for her and for me.

She should have has a real choice... not to go through with the pregnancy, or financial support.

She got neither and was forced to abandon me.

ONLY WANTED BABIES SHOULD BE BORN.

I'm sorry you have been led to believe that you should not have been born. That is wrong. Your life matters. You matter. I am glad you were born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

We’re open to suggestions. That don’t require the Republican controlled House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

I mean, have you seen a blastocyst?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

Wow. I’ve never understood these “dormant” laws, With all of the lawyers in in justice department we should be able to identify and eliminate the old laws that are not enforced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

This is an interesting point.

?? I mean not really interesting to me.

Have you had an abortion? Had any friends who have?

I’ve had not had one myself (I actually have 3 kids and been married 20+ years, JD Vance would love me). I know of one close friend who had one an abortion. People who do have real and legitimate reasons. My friend has since passed away (cancer).

I’m now old enough that any abortion ban is not going to impact me personally. And my kids are all boys so they are fortunate they wouldn’t be directly impacted. But none the less: hands off my body!!

There is NO way the govt should have any role in the decisions that women make about their own bodies.

The GOP makes no sense:

Guns = govt cannot control
Women = it’s a - ok that govt controls their own body

Basically if you are anti choice you are sawing that women are less important than guns.

Crazy. Weird. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Abortion should be between only a woman and her doctor.

If you believe once conception occurs there cannot be any intervention by any person to prevent a live birth, how can you live with the idea of mandating this in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or molar pregnancy that will kill the woman?

And if you allow termination based on a threat to the life of the woman, then how is the outcome (woman is no longer pregnant) and different than the outcome of a termination of an unwanted pregnancy (woman is no longer pregnant).

I don’t understand the reasoning that a woman must be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Would you be ok with the surgical removal of the intact zygote/embryo/fetus? Of course current science says the zygote/embryo/fetus would die upon its removal without its host, but if it’s a separate person, as some here have claimed, then the woman could just let the hospital know she was putting it up for adoption, right? (Clearly I’m offering this illustration as a logic test only. In no way do I think this should be the only way an abortion should be allowed.) The point is, the end result would be the same - the zygote/embryo/fetus would die whether by pharmaceutical abortion or this method, but the risk to the woman would be much greater with this method since surgery always has risks.

Tell me under what logic this extraction abortion and adoption would not be allowed and under what laws you would say a woman could not choose to do this.

My ultimate point is: outlawing medical abortion is just an attempt to control women by playing a game of chicken - you’re making it difficult to choose an outcome that’s legally permissible (not to carry a pregnancy to term) by threatening their health/life and betting women won’t go to this allowable extreme and gambling that pregnant women will blink first. That’s sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be between only a woman and her doctor.

If you believe once conception occurs there cannot be any intervention by any person to prevent a live birth, how can you live with the idea of mandating this in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or molar pregnancy that will kill the woman?

And if you allow termination based on a threat to the life of the woman, then how is the outcome (woman is no longer pregnant) and different than the outcome of a termination of an unwanted pregnancy (woman is no longer pregnant).

I don’t understand the reasoning that a woman must be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Would you be ok with the surgical removal of the intact zygote/embryo/fetus? Of course current science says the zygote/embryo/fetus would die upon its removal without its host, but if it’s a separate person, as some here have claimed, then the woman could just let the hospital know she was putting it up for adoption, right? (Clearly I’m offering this illustration as a logic test only. In no way do I think this should be the only way an abortion should be allowed.) The point is, the end result would be the same - the zygote/embryo/fetus would die whether by pharmaceutical abortion or this method, but the risk to the woman would be much greater with this method since surgery always has risks.

Tell me under what logic this extraction abortion and adoption would not be allowed and under what laws you would say a woman could not choose to do this.

My ultimate point is: outlawing medical abortion is just an attempt to control women by playing a game of chicken - you’re making it difficult to choose an outcome that’s legally permissible (not to carry a pregnancy to term) by threatening their health/life and betting women won’t go to this allowable extreme and gambling that pregnant women will blink first. That’s sick.

A “host” is different species than the organism it’s “hosting.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am always perplexed by with my very pro-choice friends is that when they or another friend/acquaintance is pregnant with a wanted child, it’s called a baby from the minute they find out they’re pregnant. But when the pregnancy is not wanted, it’s not a baby, just a clump of cells.

Don't play stupid.

I was born to an unwed mother. People like you made it hell for her and for me.

She should have has a real choice... not to go through with the pregnancy, or financial support.

She got neither and was forced to abandon me.

ONLY WANTED BABIES SHOULD BE BORN.

I'm sorry you have been led to believe that you should not have been born. That is wrong. Your life matters. You matter. I am glad you were born.

But you sure as hell wouldn’t vote for any social services to support the unwed mother after she gave birth. Conservatives care about fetuses; after they’re born not so much.

[Anonymous]

I wrote this in another thread but I think all sexually mature men should be required to have vasectomies until a woman decides when she wants to have children. It can be reversed in most cases. Make it a criminal offense punishable by jail time for a man to get a woman pregnant or even for not using a condom if she does not want to get pregnant. Let’s make men pay for all children that they bring into this world including those who are institutionalized due to disabilities or adopted. If we are going to treat women like criminals we need to start treating men like criminals since they are half of the problem. If we aren’t going to allow abortions we need to protect all women, especially girls, from the possibility of getting pregnant.