I missed that part of the constitution

[Mik]

Its a bit hard to swallow when our privacy is being abused daily.

[Horace]

@george-k said in I missed that part of the constitution:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider gutting the constitutional right to abortion

That would eviscerate the core holding of the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling

Gutting! Eviscerate!!

I wonder what that journalist's personal opinions about abortion are?

[George K]

I'm not a zealot when it comes to abortion.

I am much more of a zealot on how the "news" is reported, and Bloomberg's comment is, to me, outrageous editorializing.

[Mik]

I agree. I find Mississippi’s law to be quite reasonable, and it clearly has exceptions.

Safe, legal and rare.

It would seem to me that the ability of the fetus to feel pain would be a better line than viability. Fifteen weeks seems well before that line.

[George K]

@mik said in I missed that part of the constitution:

I find Mississippi’s law to be quite reasonable, and it clearly has exceptions.
Safe, legal and rare.

And, to a great extent, is the law in Europe.

[LuFins Dad]

Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart.

[Copper]

But what about rape?

[Horace]

@copper said in I missed that part of the constitution:

But what about rape?

In my opinion, rape is wrong, full stop.

[Mik]

@lufins-dad said in I missed that part of the constitution:

Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart.

Don't get me wrong - I am not what you would call pro-choice. I simply recognize the reality of what we face here. Anything that goes to lessen the suffering is a good step and a compromise worth making. You're not going to get rid of abortion until you change people's hearts and jamming prohibition down their throats is not going to do that.

[Copper]

@horace said in I missed that part of the constitution:

@copper said in I missed that part of the constitution:

But what about rape?

In my opinion, rape is wrong, full stop.

I know a lot of conservatives who feel that way.

[LuFins Dad]

@mik said in I missed that part of the constitution:

@lufins-dad said in I missed that part of the constitution:

Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart.

Don't get me wrong - I am not what you would call pro-choice. I simply recognize the reality of what we face here. Anything that goes to lessen the suffering is a good step and a compromise worth making. You're not going to get rid of abortion until you change people's hearts and jamming prohibition down their throats is not going to do that.

I get that, and that wasn’t meant towards you, more the other side. The Safe, Legal, and Rare comment has been a part of the Democrat playbook for decades and there is a fundamental flaw in that discussion.