Judge blocks Missouri 8-week abortion ban

guno said:
In the Georgia law, abortion is strictly banned and criminalized after approximately six weeks. The law includes a provision that seems to allow for abortion in the case of imminent maternal danger.

But it states that before a legal abortion can proceed, a physician must determine “that a medical emergency exists.” Put in clinical terms, this means that a woman would need to be actively in danger at the time abortion began, along the lines of what Feinstein requires.

Another complication: If a woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy and needs to receive chemotherapy and/or radiation in order to survive, abortion is often needed, and is halachically warranted, prior to these treatments. None of these state level bans seem to allow for this, as the mother is not inherently in a state of medical emergency. Would these states argue that chemotherapy and radiation could be given while she is pregnant, and the fetus may or may not survive this noxious assault? Or perhaps they would argue that these treatments cannot be given, as they might cause a spontaneous abortion? In other cases the law is explicit that intentionally triggering a spontaneous abortion would be grounds for prosecution of the mother and doctor.

There are other nuances in Jewish law that depart from the Christian pro-life narrative:
Click to expand...

A good argument for leaving medical decisions between the physician and the patient and keeping politicians' and church people's noses out of it.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Other than to save the life of the mother, late-term abortions are illegal almost everywhere. Very few physicians will perform one even where it might still be legal, except to save mom's life -- or if the fetus has died or will be still-born. The froth about babies being born and "murdered" by the doctor is plain bullshit. What the purveyors of this nonsense are talking about are children who are either still-born, or born with such severe defects that they die shortly after birth. The crazies somehow think that life-saving measures should be instituted even when they are clearly ineffective. One example of this is a child born without a developed brain, a condition called anencephaly. Typically, the baby is bathed and wrapped like any newborn, then given to the parents to hold until he/she passes away. Some moms choose to abort when the condition is first discovered via ultrasound; others choose to carry to term, or are forced to if their insurance won't pay for a therapeutic abortion. Either way, it is a heartbreaking thing. What a shame that some feel it is okay to politicize such sorrow, and lie about it. Can you imagine how that must hurt the parents who have gone through such a tragedy?
Click to expand...
To save the life of the mother, the baby has be induced and removed from her body. Her life does not depend on killing the baby, only inducing the labor and getting it out. There are no such medical conditions requiring a baby to be killed to save the mother.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
You could have just stopped right there and been correct.

You do not have the right to control another woman's body, any more than she has the right to control yours. You are free, however, to wring your hands, post smarmy memes, and harshly judge others. Carry on.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to judge or control another's life either by giving that other life the thumbs up or down.
 
Life is Golden said:
To save the life of the mother, the baby has be induced and removed from her body. Her life does not depend on killing the baby, only inducing the labor and getting it out. There are no such medical conditions requiring a baby to be killed to save the mother.
Click to expand...

In a sense that is correct. However, if the fetus is too young it is not viable outside the body of mom and will die. Another poster brought up the question of cancer and chemo/radiation, both of which are likely lethal to a developing fetus. What a horrendous choice to have to make -- to try to survive by undergoing cancer treatment and knowing your child will die, or doing nothing and leaving an orphan behind.
 
Stretch said:
You don't have the right to judge or control another's life either by giving that other life the thumbs up or down.
Click to expand...

If that "life" is in my body, I do indeed have that right. You choose to define life as beginning at conception and then forcing that definition on to others. The rest of us do not agree with your definition. Did you see Guno's interesting post about Jewish law?

Worry about your own womb and not about others'.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If that "life" is in my body, I do indeed have that right. You choose to define life as beginning at conception and then forcing that definition on to others. The rest of us do not agree with your definition. Did you see Guno's interesting post about Jewish law?

Worry about your own womb and not about others'.
Click to expand...

The uterus is the nest. Then go kill some eagles and turtles in their "wombs".
 
Life is Golden said:
I have no idea about the statistics. But, there are a lot of teenage girls and others unequipped mentally or financially to carry a baby to full term and have abortions early on, when the baby is undeveloped.

Why do you want the government to force these people to carry a baby to full term? Aren't you male?
Click to expand...
because murdering unborn children is not a solution.......put the kid up for adoption instead of killing it.......
 
Did you see Guno's interesting post about Jewish law?
Click to expand...

the problem with Guano's "interesting post about Jewish law" is that its a misrepresentation of Jewish scripture.......YHWH did not condone killing unborn children......
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Those are endangered species. Humans are not endangered. Yet. We're sure working on that though, aren't we? I'm not talking about abortion, either.
Click to expand...

And Bama removed bald eagles from the endangered species act list in 2007.
If human life has not been recognized by a government agency as an "endangered species", is it less valuable?
If yes, then kill at will.
If no, then protect it.
 
Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
Those are endangered species. Humans are not endangered. Yet. We're sure working on that though, aren't we? I'm not talking about abortion, either.
Click to expand...

well you ought to be....every child you worthless lib'ruls kill is endangered......
 
Stretch said:
The uterus is the nest. Then go kill some eagles and turtles in their "wombs".
Click to expand...
^^ Such a bad analogy it does not even qualify as apples to oranges. It is more like pig shit to cherry cheesecake.

You obviously did not think up this eagle egg analogy independently on your own, but stole it, plagiarized it from some wingnut website.

Eagles and their eggs are protected as an endangered species that needs time and effort to recover to a viable and sustainable population. There was no religious motivation to protecting eagles or their eggs; it is a very pragmatic strategy to promote population recovery.

The overwhelming, vast majority of wildlife species do not receive these protections because they are neither endangered nor threatened.

When the human population reaches such low levels it is on the threshold of extinction, we can talk about strategies to save ourselves from extinction.

Until then, you really need to come up with analogies that are not pure horse manure.
 
Cypress said:
^^ Such a bad analogy it does not even qualify as apples to oranges. It is more like pig shit to cherry cheesecake.

You obviously did not think up this eagle egg analogy independently on your own, but stole it, plagiarized it from some wingnut website.

Eagles and their eggs are protected as an endangered species that needs time and effort to recover to a viable and sustainable population. There was no religious motivation to protecting eagles or their eggs; it is a very pragmatic strategy to promote population recovery.

The overwhelming, vast majority of wildlife species do not receive these protections because they are neither endangered nor threatened.

When the human population reaches such low levels it is on the threshold of extinction, we can talk about strategies to save ourselves from extinction.

Until then, you really need to come up with analogies that are not pure horse manure.
Click to expand...


Typical shallow view of life...government dictates your values.
And Bama removed bald eagles from the endangered species act list in 2007.
If human life has not been recognized by a government agency as an "endangered species", is it less valuable?
If yes, then kill at will.
If no, then protect it.
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
Missouri, where this recent law was enacted, has only one clinic left that does abortions. It is in St. Louis. So that means any Missouri citizen wanting a medically-supervised procedure must travel there to receive it. So if you live in Columbia, for instance, you'll have to travel almost two hours one way.
Click to expand...

And, knowing this, Republicans make laws that force a consultation followed by a waiting period before the procedure can take place. This means that the trip must be made at least two times. Once again separating the poor from the rich. And forcing people to waste a bunch of money and time, burning up more fuel, releasing more carbon, taking more time off from work, reducing American efficiency and productivity. Adding to highway travel, increasing traffic density with unnecessary trips, increasing the risk of accidents and fatalities, burning up tires and brakes needlessly, adding pointless mileage onto vehicles. What a waste.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Do you have a link for this? I question it since birth rates have been falling for years. If true, I question whether abortion has anything to do with it because while birth rates have been falling so have the number of abortions; so, abortions were obviously not responsible for keeping birth rates lower.
Click to expand...

No, that does not necessarily follow. If there are fewer unintended pregnancies then it is logical that there are fewer abortions. Studies have been done on the numbers, but not the reasons. Due to publicly funded family planning services, more women are able to access birth control measures.

Flash said:
Lower income/education women have long had the highest birth rates both in the U. S. and around the world.
Click to expand...

And they still do. And since Republicans are doing their best to destroy publicly funded family planning services it is only logical that the number of resulting unintended pregnancies will be higher than if those services are maintained. Poor women depend on public services while rich women do not. The reduction in rates indicates the success of the planning services.

Here is a widely recognized study, but the data only goes up until 2011:

Unintended Pregnancies in the USA
 
PoliTalker said:
And, knowing this, Republicans make laws that force a consultation followed by a waiting period before the procedure can take place. This means that the trip must be made at least two times. Once again separating the poor from the rich. And forcing people to waste a bunch of money and time, burning up more fuel, releasing more carbon, taking more time off from work, reducing American efficiency and productivity. Adding to highway travel, increasing traffic density with unnecessary trips, increasing the risk of accidents and fatalities, burning up tires and brakes needlessly, adding pointless mileage onto vehicles. What a waste.
Click to expand...

They're okay with it, it's not THEIR money. You can bet that they'll also make sure that once they've forced the mom to give birth, there will be nothing to assist them with food, housing, education, medical care, etc.

And this is how new (D)s are made, as someone else pointed out.
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
They're okay with it, it's not THEIR money. You can bet that they'll also make sure that once they've forced the mom to give birth, there will be nothing to assist them with food, housing, education, medical care, etc.

And this is how new (D)s are made, as someone else pointed out.
Click to expand...

Right. It's how Republicans are growing a stronger 'Demographic Party.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top