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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ability to breathe on your own is really what makes a fetus viable. So if the baby’s lungs aren’t developed enough to pass air through them ithat determines the viability level. It has nothing to do with feeding as that is understood as something babies need. It has to do with the ability to breathe air.

If you are ready to stop being a fish you can be viable.
Do some research people before you form your “not science based” opinions

A human fetus starts breathing at 11 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

Really? You don’t understand?

They want to control women and make them subservient. They don’t care at all about what comes out of the womb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

That’s the forced birther movement in a nutshell: arguing in the worst faith possible.

Arguing in the worst faith possible is the hallmark of being a conservative

[Anonymous]

Nobody knows when human life begins or when there is a soul in the baby. Best to err on the safe side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

Do you think the bodily rights of embryos and fetuses take prominence over other considerations in any cases, such as forcing the raped 10 year old in Ohio to carry to term?

If not, why not?

Why didn’t the raped 10 year old child’s mother report the rape to police? Didn’t the mother’s boyfriend rape the girl at age 9 and impregnate her, and the child’s mother allow her daughter to be raped because she was covering for her pedophile boyfriend?

Stop changing the subject. Do you or do you not believe a raped 10 year old should be forced to go to term with the pregnancy that resulted the rape?

A 10 year old child of an illegal immigrant mother is repeatedly raped at age 9 by the illegal immigrant mom’s illegal immigrant pedophile boyfriend and your opinion is the innocent baby wasn’t killed quickly enough?

The life and well being of the raped 10 year old is more important and takes priority, yes. That opinion is also consistent with the majority of Americans.

Why would you override the will of the American people based on your personal opinion? You are welcome to live elsewhere if you prefer dictator type leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is pro abortion except the last trimester. Pretty much the overwhelming majority take.

His platform does not write any exceptions such as life or health of the mother, fatal abnormality in child (a situation a family member was in).

Without that being in writing, I don't accept that Trump has a reasonable view of abortion because what comes out of his mouth changes with the wind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

Do you think the bodily rights of embryos and fetuses take prominence over other considerations in any cases, such as forcing the raped 10 year old in Ohio to carry to term?

If not, why not?

Why didn’t the raped 10 year old child’s mother report the rape to police? Didn’t the mother’s boyfriend rape the girl at age 9 and impregnate her, and the child’s mother allow her daughter to be raped because she was covering for her pedophile boyfriend?

Stop changing the subject. Do you or do you not believe a raped 10 year old should be forced to go to term with the pregnancy that resulted the rape?

A 10 year old child of an illegal immigrant mother is repeatedly raped at age 9 by the illegal immigrant mom’s illegal immigrant pedophile boyfriend and your opinion is the innocent baby wasn’t killed quickly enough?

The “innocent” in this scenario is the 10 year old. That is what you fundamentally misunderstand. There is no baby in this scenario, because the child was allowed to abort a fetus.
I hope that clears things up for you.

Fetal development is an orderly and intricate process. It begins before you even know you’re pregnant and ends with the birth of your baby. Between conception and delivery, there are many detailed steps that have to occur.

There are three stages of fetal development: germinal, embryonic and fetal.

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period (LMP). This is the gestational age of the fetus.

What if your LMP was 9 months before you next ovulated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is pro abortion except the last trimester. Pretty much the overwhelming majority take.

Last trimester starts at 27 weeks. Roe ensured abortion rights up to around the time of viability, so around 24 weeks with exceptions for situations like a doomed pregnancy. Just so we’re all clear on that. So yes, people would like to return to the Roe standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

Do you think the bodily rights of embryos and fetuses take prominence over other considerations in any cases, such as forcing the raped 10 year old in Ohio to carry to term?

If not, why not?

Why didn’t the raped 10 year old child’s mother report the rape to police? Didn’t the mother’s boyfriend rape the girl at age 9 and impregnate her, and the child’s mother allow her daughter to be raped because she was covering for her pedophile boyfriend?

Stop changing the subject. Do you or do you not believe a raped 10 year old should be forced to go to term with the pregnancy that resulted the rape?

A 10 year old child of an illegal immigrant mother is repeatedly raped at age 9 by the illegal immigrant mom’s illegal immigrant pedophile boyfriend and your opinion is the innocent baby wasn’t killed quickly enough?

Yes pregnancy can kill that innocent 10 year old baby, glad you realize that.

10 year old children are not considered babies. 10 year old children are emerging adolescents. They are definitely children, but not babies. A baby is only a baby until they turn one year old. They are then a toddler.

Oh you are saying there is progression in human development that changes status? Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability to breathe on your own is really what makes a fetus viable. So if the baby’s lungs aren’t developed enough to pass air through them ithat determines the viability level. It has nothing to do with feeding as that is understood as something babies need. It has to do with the ability to breathe air.

If you are ready to stop being a fish you can be viable.
Do some research people before you form your “not science based” opinions

A human fetus starts breathing at 11 weeks.

No sweetie, they are breathing amniotic fluid, not air. If you are pregnant and may give birth at a preemie they give a surfactant while the fetus is in utero to speed lung development just in case the baby is born. Although there are other factors, the thing no one has been able to get past is the ability to get a fetus to breathe air before 25 weeks (some babies can do this at 22, but this is RARE). If they don’t give a surfactant to the preemies, the air sacs burst when the fetus hits air. The fetus will die without that and many do die because their lungs aren’t ready for air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are so offended by even their own born children; it’s easy to see why they are enamored with killing their unborn children. They give decent people the ick.

Most people would much prefer not to have an unplanned pregnancy or not to have a nonviable or medically risky pregnancy.

To say that one group holds the sanctity of life higher than the other is disingenuous. When you criminalize abortion what happens is that the very common instance is miscarriage needs to be investigated, and some women would be punished for simply having a miscarriage.

Criminalizing it means you need to monitor women, their cycles and their travels. Most Americans do not like that.

It means that when there is a risk to the life of a mother doctors will not want to help because they don’t want to go to jail or lose their license. And that’s what we’re seeing play out across the country - many women having invasive medical interventions that could have been avoided and very scary medical incidents that risk their fertility and their life, that in other countries or in certain states they wouldn’t be in that position.

We have to stop saying one side loves babies and one side doesn’t. It’s simply isn’t the case and it doesn’t seem to be working if you’re looking at what is going around the country and what people are voting for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

The baby inside the mother is alive. Only a human baby can develop inside a human woman.

At the moment of fertilization, an unborn baby possesses all the DNA-coded information it needs to be and is a totally separate person. At conception, “ethnicity, hair color, eye color, and other traits are already determined.”

So does a teratoma.

Do you even know what a teratoma is? Because no, it does not contain all the DNA coded information it needs to be a totally separate person. It is a genetic error. It’s not even close to a separate person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Make sure you understand what you are voting for. Your rights to your body are done if Trump gets elected.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html


Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.

“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”

Didn't he tell you in the first presidential debate that he's fine with leaving it up to the states?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Make sure you understand what you are voting for. Your rights to your body are done if Trump gets elected.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html


Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.

“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”

Didn't he tell you in the first presidential debate that he's fine with leaving it up to the states?

First, Trump is a liar.

Second, I am not interested in having my rights left up "to the states.:

[Anonymous]

What happens when you cross state lines?
I have less rights when I leave my state?
No that’s not acceptable.