Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 02, 2022

Madison Underwood found out at 19 weeks that her sorely wanted female fetus had not formed a skull, so she would survive at most a few hours, if not minutes, after birth. Doctors told her that the fetus's brain matter was leaking into the umbilical sac, which could cause sepsis and lead to critical illness or even death. Doctors recommended she terminate the pregnancy for her own safety.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Madison Underwood was lying on the ultrasound table, nearly 19 weeks pregnant (on June 27th, 3 days after Roe was overturned), when the doctor came in to say her abortion had been canceled.

Nurses followed and started wiping away lukewarm sonogram gel from her exposed belly as the doctor leaned over her shoulder to speak to her fianc, Adam Queen. Just two weeks earlier, she and her fianc had learned her fetus had a condition that would not allow it to survive outside the womb. If she tried to carry to term, she could become critically ill, or even die, her doctor had said. Now, she was being told she couldn't have an abortion she didn't even want, but needed.

In the blur around her, she heard the doctor and nurses talking about a clinic in Georgia that could do the procedure now that the legal risks of performing it in Tennessee were too high.

"They're just going to let me die?" she remembers wondering.

Tennessee allows abortion if a woman's life is in danger, but doctors feared making those decisions too soon and facing prosecution. It was into this chaos that Ms. Underwood was sent home, still pregnant, and reeling. What would happen now? The doctor said she should go to Georgia, where abortions were still legal up to 22 weeks, though that state had a ban that would soon take effect.

No one should be put through the physical and emotional trauma that non-clinical anti abortion laws inflict upon already distraught women and couples. Almost all later term abortions are performed for medically-driven reasons wholly unrelated to choice. No matter how these laws are written, they're likely to affect the immediate care that so many women require for their own health and safety, including the many who lovingly want the child within them, but nature herself had other plans making such births potentially fatal to both mother and baby.

Physicians cannot operate with legal eyes looking over their shoulders and second guessing their professional opinions and practices. This is going to cost potential mothers their own lives as the fetus now will have more rights to life than the mother carrying them does regarding her own.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-01 09:31 PM | Reply

Miranda will be in here soon to say the doctors should have had the courage and performed the abortion

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-01 09:36 PM | Reply

This story is utter barbarism. Completely intentional infliction of pain and suffering on a family. Republicans are SCUM

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-01 09:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Don't get pregnant if you aren't ready for Republicans to force you to get sepsis. It's just part of the deal in this totally first world country.

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-01 10:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"They're just going to let me die?"

It's not all bad.
Miranda7 will be there to hold your hand, and call your medical team cowards who don't understand the law.
Eberly will make popcorn.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-01 10:26 PM | Reply

If she voted GOP in the last 20 years, too bad so sad.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2022-08-01 11:39 PM | Reply

If she tried to carry to term, she could become critically ill, or even die, her doctor had said. Now, she was being told she couldn't have an abortion she didn't even want, but needed.

This is what happens when you have a rapist deciding on the health care rights for women.

Rapists have no respect for women.

#7 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-08-02 08:07 AM | Reply

"They're just going to let me die?"

Dead women can't complain.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-02 08:25 AM | Reply

If you don't have the money to fly to Mexico to get an abortion like my daughter and mistress, then you shouldn't have gotten pregnant!
-Republicans

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-08-02 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Shamelessly stolen comment from the NYT page:

Gigi
Fort Collins Colorado Aug. 1

"Do you trust doctors more than God?" Good grief. I am sure they trust Walmart more than Santa Claus when it comes time to put presents under the holiday tree.

#10 | Posted by qcp at 2022-08-02 10:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clearly she's defective and is not a good contributor to the domestic supply of infants.

Have to weed out the weak producers to improve production in the future.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2022-08-02 10:42 AM | Reply

"If you don't have the money to fly to Mexico to get an abortion like my daughter and mistress"

(At times the same person)

#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-02 10:46 AM | Reply

"They're just going to let me die?"

Dead women can't complain.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-02 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag

Or vote unless its for Trump.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-08-02 11:34 AM | Reply

Like JPW said, if she was better at child birth she wouldn't be dealing with this issue. What a whiner.

#14 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-02 11:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state."

"They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state."

George Carlin

#15 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-02 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Crisis actors got to crisis act.

#16 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-08-02 12:20 PM | Reply

If this is even real the easiest way to deal with it is go to a neighboring state and take care of it. But that wouldn't be entertaining for the drama queens around here.

#17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-08-02 12:29 PM | Reply

Crisis actors got to crisis act.

#16 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

The complete lack of self-awareness in writing that comment is astounding.

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-02 12:38 PM | Reply

This is all done to create lawsuits. It's a new revenue stream for the fraternity of law professionals of which D.C. is made of.

#19 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-08-02 12:40 PM | Reply

"This is all done to create lawsuits."

The GOP overturned Roe to... create lawsuits?
Must be that Tort Reform they get so excited about.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-02 12:43 PM | Reply

This situation will not change, even when the wives and daughters of anti-abortion folk are directly involved in situations like this. Instead, those women will slink off to California, New York or Illinois to have their 'treatment' done and these matters resolved. Back home in the Bible Belt, these folks will report on their 'tragic miscarriage' which happened while they were visiting friends...

#21 | Posted by catdog at 2022-08-02 01:01 PM | Reply

With no access to abortion, the South is going to be majority black in a few generations.

Weird flex by the Racist Old Southern Gentlemen White People's Party.

They are thinking long term, knowing they'll need more workers when they bring racial slavery back, and to make up for the mass casualties the slave class will suffer in the coming Race War.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-02 01:05 PM | Reply

"They're just going to let me die?" she remembers wondering.

Yes. Anything to fire up the base.

#23 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2022-08-02 01:12 PM | Reply

With no access to abortion, the South is going to be majority black in a few generations.

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-08-02 01:05 PM | FLAG:

Why would you say that?

#24 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-08-02 01:16 PM | Reply

#20

The lawyers that make up SCOTUS unleashed the law to feed a new generation of law revenue for law school graduates. The lawyers in D.C. heartily approve. Parasites gonna parasite.

#25 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-08-02 01:18 PM | Reply

#24

Them am breed like rabbits. They poor so them can't traverse to them other states. Alcohol and lack of contraception ain't no good mix.

#26 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-08-02 01:21 PM | Reply

Crisis actors got to crisis act.

#16 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Dumbass moron has to dumbass moron.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2022-08-02 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If this is even real the easiest way to deal with it is go to a neighboring state and take care of it. But that wouldn't be entertaining for the drama queens around here.

#17 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Yeah! Because nothing says freedumz like having to go to another state for standard of care for a medical condition that's being interfered with because someone's sky daddy bronze age goat herder myth is offended.

---- off, you vile of piece of ----.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2022-08-02 01:34 PM | Reply

I don't know who's the biggest waste of air, Turd-boy, Ballwasher, the Russians, or GoatBlob.

#29 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-02 01:39 PM | Reply

Crisis actors got to crisis act.

#16 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

If this is even real the easiest way to deal with it is go to a neighboring state and take care of it. But that wouldn't be entertaining for the drama queens around here.

#17 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

The answer to the question posed in the headline, 'They're Just Going to Let Me Die?' is Yes. Yes, they are.

#30 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-02 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If this is even real the easiest way to deal with it is go to a neighboring state and take care of it. But that wouldn't be entertaining for the drama queens around here.

#17 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You would have no basis for knowing whether it is real or not, because you did not read the article. Do you know how I know you did not read the article? Because the article talks about how SHE WENT TO A NEIGHBORING STATE TO HAVE IT TAKEN CARE OF. But, because she was hundred of miles away had to stay in a hotel (it is a two day procedure). And then while going into the abortion clinic to terminate the life of the child that she wanted but was not viable and would have probably killed her if it were not terminated, had to deal with someone yelling at her through a microphone "Are you ok with killing babies?".

Also, the "neighboring state" that she went to was Georgia, which now also has abortions banned after 6 weeks. The only neighboring state of TN that allows abortion now is NC. Btw... Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi all do not have a neighboring state that allows abortion.

Uninformed and ignorant. You must be a conservative.

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-08-02 01:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

---- off, you vile of piece of ----.

#28 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2022-08-02 01:34 PM | REPLY

Found a drama queenie.

#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-08-02 01:58 PM | Reply

turd-boy is a vile sack of crap. So yes, a "con-servative"

#33 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-02 01:58 PM | Reply

"Uninformed and ignorant. You must be a conservative."

Kind of goes without saying around here at least. Some people really should stick to the Nooner where it's safe for them.

#34 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-02 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If this is even real

What basis do you have to speculate that it's not?

the easiest way to deal with it is go to a neighboring state and take care of it.

And if you can't afford to? Cant get the time off work? Dont have a car? Aren't healthy enough to travel? Are several hundred miles from a legal abortion state?

You really can't imagine life as anyone other than the miserable piece of ---- you are, can you?

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-02 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Obviously, he depends on his mom to drive him to the Piggly-Wiggly for his Cheetos and beer.

#36 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-02 02:22 PM | Reply

Yet another sad, tragic story (and you can count on many many more to come):

If her patient had been in a month earlier, Dr. Tani Malhotra would have known exactly what to do. Facing a 25% chance that her pregnancy would kill her, Malhotra's patient, who had an underlying medical condition, decided that carrying her child to term was too dangerous. She already had children at home that needed her.

She had wanted the child, not realizing her condition made it so dangerous. Through tears, she asked for an abortion.

Ohio now prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is usually around six weeks. So, Malhotra had to talk with her hospital's legal team about whether a 1 in 4 chance of death is high enough to meet the law's one exception, allowing for abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk.

It wasn't. The woman had to be sent out of state for an abortion.

"Having to tell her, 'I entirely support your decision but there's nothing I can do for you' was incredibly heartbreaking," Malhotra said.

It's also the reality for many women and doctors in states with near-total abortion bans.

www.indystar.com

I want to speak on the bolded sentence. As these draconian anti abortion laws are passed, are we going to see ex-vitro children and fathers suing the state if said laws put mothers in potential life-threatening harm while carrying problem pregnancies past the point of safety because these laws are clumsily written, creating real-world liability for services providers their attorneys won't allow them to take on for the sake of any patient?

Does a living child have any right to life regarding its own mother's life and future nurturing if her health will most certainly be endangered by carrying a problem pregnancy, or have these laws placed the rights of a developing fetus over those of already living families and husbands who stand to possibly lose their mothers and wives by carrying non-viable or life threatening fetus' to the point of dire health emergencies or births?

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-02 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, Malhotra had to talk with her hospital's legal team about whether a 1 in 4 chance of death is high enough to meet the law's one exception, allowing for abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk.

It wasn't. The woman had to be sent out of state for an abortion."

Miranda7, we need you to mansplain to us what went wrong here.
Thanks!

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-02 03:39 PM | Reply

"Miranda7, we need you to mansplain to us what went wrong here."

Waiting with bated breath.

#39 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-02 03:52 PM | Reply

If this is even real the easiest way to deal with it is go to a neighboring state and take care of it. But that wouldn't be entertaining for the drama queens around here.

#17 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

And what happens when your party continues its never-ending quest to ignore the rights of the majority and outlaws abortion nationwide?

#40 | Posted by cbob at 2022-08-02 04:04 PM | Reply

Malhotra had to talk with her hospital's legal team about whether a 1 in 4 chance of death is high enough to meet the law's one exception, allowing for abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. It wasn't. The woman had to be sent out of state for an abortion.

A hospital system's in-house legal team's role is to guard the company against risk. Republicans write intentionally vague abortion exceptions as a way of shifting the decision to that legal team, who will almost always say "don't do it."

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-02 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39 Hagbard,it is apparent that you have not read any of my posts. If you had, you would realize that I am not in favor of any of the recent draconian abortion bills, including Tennessee's. There are a few trolls here who frequently attribute positions to me that I do not hold, because they are desperate to find an opponent in the DR echo chamber. If you had read my posts, you would also realize that my pronouns are she/her, so I don't "mansplain". If you are truly interested in my opinion, ask me a sincere question and I will be glad to respond respectfully.

#42 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-02 06:48 PM | Reply

"I am not in favor of any of the recent draconian abortion bills"

LOL.

You're in favor of repealing Roe, so you're in favor of all the trigger laws that come into play when Roe is repealed.

I can't imagine what sort of mental gymnastics goes through your head when you support the effort to untie the rope holding things together, and then claim you didn't want things to fall apart.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-02 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some people in this world are too simple minded to consider and understand the views of others who disagree with them. They have the need to force others into an "us vs them" box providing their own warped interpretations instead of contemplating their actual words and meanings. I call them trolls.

#44 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-02 07:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Some people in this world are too simple minded to consider and understand the views of others who disagree with them."

Some people don't plainly state their views, and don't provide direct answers to simple questions about their views.
In my experience, these kinds of people tend to have an ulterior motive.
They're looking to recruit you, or gaslight you, or some other kind of confidence scheme.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-02 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ask me a sincere question and I will be glad to respond respectfully.

#42 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Did the doctors in this case lack the courage to perform the abortion despite the legal implications?

If no, how does this case differ from the Texas case discussed a couple of days ago where you held the doctors lacked the courage to perform an abortion?

If yes, do you realize that your support for overturning Roe (by voting for republicans, any republican) has lead to these types of ethical choices for doctors?

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-02 09:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some people in this world are too simple minded to consider and understand the views of others who disagree with them. They have the need to force others into an "us vs them" box providing their own warped interpretations instead of contemplating their actual words and meanings. I call them trolls.

#44 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

You do realize that there are certain things that are and should be red lines in the sand for reasonable people. Example, the democratic process to elect the president. To falsely claim fraud and inciting an insurrection is one of those red lines. I will not compromise with someone who believes that the insurrection on 1/6/21 was anything less than a terroristic, treasonous attack on our country.

Same goes for abortion. We had a compromise in RvW that I was willing to accept despite it being a huge distance from my personal beliefs. Religious fanatics overturned it. There is no room for compromise.

So, one of the ways to fight this barbaric decision is to throw the atrocities in people's faces. Force them to acknowledge the logical and expected result of their choices. To make them face the consequences that they have unleashed. To prevent them from hiding behind lies and mistruths about the real-life impacts of the policies they support.

And trust me I consider and understand their views, all too well. Just don't expect me to be polite to people who support barbarism even indirectly.

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-02 09:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Right on cue, there's my other troll with a fresh pile of strawman attacks..

#48 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 04:32 AM | Reply

I am not in favor of any of the recent draconian abortion bills, including Tennessee's

... you just support the court ruling that allowed them to occur.

The pin you dance on must be awfully dull at this point.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-03 06:17 AM | Reply

Re: #44 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-08-02 07:07 PM

Irony Flag

#50 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2022-08-03 08:13 AM | Reply

#37 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

That's an excellent point Tony, and I think one which gets overlooked in the debate. It seems so many on the right have a perception of the woman who seeks an abortion as some loose irresponsible unmarried ---- who can't keep her legs closed. Of the woman seeking a late term abortion as some maniacal infanticidal maniac. Many of the women seeking abortion have families already. There may be health risks involved. Certainly economic concerns. Age concerns. My mother had an unexpected late in life pregnancy when she was in her 40's. Fortunately she just naturally miscarried. I'm quite certain she would not have sought an abortion and I was very afraid for her health. My father finally woke the hell up and got snipped after that.

#51 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-03 08:51 AM | Reply

Yet another reason why we are now considered a flawed democracy, not at all the "#1 country"
Economic Freedom #25 (Heritage Foundation)
www.heritage.org
Human Freedom Index #15 worldpopulationreview.com
Democracy ranking #26 www.eiu.com
But we are #1 in percentage of population in prison

#52 | Posted by e1g1 at 2022-08-03 10:56 AM | Reply

Right on cue, there's my other troll with a fresh pile of strawman attacks..

#48 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

I'm curious what you view as a strawman. One post is a series of questions, which you asked for. The other is a response to your statement with my opinion. Neither is a strawman

I don't think you know what a strawman is

#53 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 11:43 AM | Reply

Religious fanatics overturned it. There is no room for compromise.

When someone bases their entire political stance on a religious belief, there can never be compromise.

That is why religion dictating policy is dangerous.

Just ask Tehran or Kabul how that is working out.

Extremist muslims and extremist christians are two of the same that seek to suppress women.

#54 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-08-03 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are TWO people on this board I will not engage with, because you REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions then argue against those misrepresented positions. That is TRUTHHURTS and SNOOFY. Play amongst yourselves, little trolls, grownups are talking.

#55 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 02:19 PM | Reply

"misrepresent my positions"

You say you want Roe overturned.
You also say you don't like the consequences of Roe being overturned.
Are those misrepresentations?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 02:21 PM | Reply

I am not in favor of any of the recent draconian abortion bills, including Tennessee's

... you just support the court ruling that allowed them to occur.

The pin you dance on must be awfully dull at this point.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-03 06:17 AM | Reply | Flag:
Joe, Can you please show me where I have ever supported the Dobbs ruling? Nope you can't because I haven't. Next?

#57 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 02:22 PM | Reply

italics off?

"Joe, Can you please show me where I have ever supported the Dobbs ruling?"

So you didn't want Roe overturned?
You call yourself Pro-Life. You sure you didn't want Roe overturned?

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 02:25 PM | Reply

To be perfectly clear. I have NEVER said I wanted Roe overturned. I have NEVER said I support the Dobbs ruling. I have NEVER said I support the Texas law, the Tennessee law, the Ohio law or any of the draconian laws under discussion here. T

My views on abortion aren't as simple as pro-life vs pro-choice. Most Americans views aren't. If there is anyone here interested in a respectful discussion, I will be glad to answer your questions and share my views. TRUTH, SNOOFY and JOE have made it clear they have no interest in respectful discussion, they are just looking for a pinata.

#59 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 02:33 PM | Reply

"To be perfectly clear. I have NEVER said I wanted Roe overturned. I have NEVER said I support the Dobbs ruling. I have NEVER said I support the Texas law, the Tennessee law, the Ohio law or any of the draconian laws under discussion here."

To be perfectly clear, I notice you didn't deny saying you're Pro-Life.

Square you being Pro-Life with not wanting Roe overturned.

Because you can't have both.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 02:45 PM | Reply

"My views on abortion aren't as simple as pro-life vs pro-choice."

^
This is you, dissembling and evading, yet again.
Your views are apparently so complicated, you can't even state them.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

To be perfectly clear. I have NEVER said I wanted Roe overturned.

So did you want it overturned or not?

Yes or no. Very simple way to move this discussion forward.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-03 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My views on abortion aren't as simple as pro-life vs pro-choice. Most Americans views aren't.

Actuually the nice thing about Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is the simplicity.
It's very simple for me to say I'm Pro-Choice.
Pro-Choice, which is the majority view among Americans, means that the government should not be the one to decide.
Pro-Life means the government says no, you can't have an abortion.

If you somehow think you're neither of those, then you're wrong, and you need to figure out which one you are before you open your mouth again.
Thanks for reading and understanding.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 02:50 PM | Reply

To be perfectly clear. I have NEVER said I wanted Roe overturned. I have NEVER said I support the Dobbs ruling. I have NEVER said I support the Texas law, the Tennessee law, the Ohio law or any of the draconian laws under discussion here. T
My views on abortion aren't as simple as pro-life vs pro-choice. Most Americans views aren't. If there is anyone here interested in a respectful discussion, I will be glad to answer your questions and share my views. TRUTH, SNOOFY and JOE have made it clear they have no interest in respectful discussion, they are just looking for a pinata.
#59 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Miranda, you were the one that argued that the current laws are being misinterpreted by doctors who fear the ramifications of providing abortions. Am I incorrect in that observation? I have simply asked if that belief extends to the Tenn. case. I am trying to understand your position. It is very unclear to me. These are real life examples of the impact of overturning Roe.

The uncertainty resulting from the laws is a natural, logical and fully expected result of overturning Roe. There have been multiple examples of the uncertainty playing out in the past month. I think you should defend your statement if you want to participate in debates on the topic. If your views are being misinterpreted, please feel free to provide context or explanation. From what I can tell you have an issue with abortions, fine. But you refuse to engage in a discussion about the ramifications of prohibiting abortion. You seem to fall back on people have different perspectives on the topic. Well, I believe that that is not enough justification for the pain that overturning roe is causing.

No one WANTS abortion. But unwanted pregnancies are a fact of life. Forcing women to carry to term unwanted fetuses has a profound effect on women-far beyond the health impacts. And overturning Roe resulted in the compromise being thrown out the window. I don't see how anything I wrote is even remotely controversial and certainly not an attack on you.

#64 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 03:37 PM | Reply

There are TWO people on this board I will not engage with, because you REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions then argue against those misrepresented positions. That is TRUTHHURTS and SNOOFY. Play amongst yourselves, little trolls, grownups are talking.

#55 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Again, I ask how have I misinterpreted your position?

#65 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 03:38 PM | Reply

#62 No, I did not want Roe overturned.

#66 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 03:54 PM | Reply

#62 No, I did not want Roe overturned.

I think you're only saying that now that you're forced to face the consequences of Roe being overturned.

Two weeks ago you were horrified that a handful of states let a woman get an abortion the day before she's due, so as to not interfere with her summer plans. And you thought that law needed to be changed.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 04:02 PM | Reply

To repeat: There are TWO people on this board I will not engage with, because you REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions then argue against those misrepresented positions. That is TRUTHHURTS and SNOOFY. Play amongst yourselves, little trolls, grownups are talking.

#68 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 04:08 PM | Reply

"REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions"

Nah. That's not what's going on here.
Here is your position:

Ive seen it with my own eyes. It may be rare, but it does happen. In several states a girl can get a 40th week abortion because it interferes with her summer vacation plans. If that doesn't really happen, then why does restricting it concern you?
#33 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-07-28 08:13 PM
drudge.com

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 04:12 PM | Reply

Miranda7, you were concerned enough that you supported restricting it by overturning Roe.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 04:26 PM | Reply

To repeat: There are TWO people on this board I will not engage with, because you REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions then argue against those misrepresented positions. That is TRUTHHURTS and SNOOFY. Play amongst yourselves, little trolls, grownups are talking.
#68 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

How have I MISREPRESENTED your position?

#48 She was not forced to wait. Her doctor made that decision. Texas DOES provide an exception for medical emergencies, and her situation easily fit the criterion needed to justify an abortion. Her doctors and the Hospital board did not have the courage to do the right thing. Her situation was caused by the hastily enacted law, but the cowardly medical staff contributed.
#50 According to you the only difference between abortion and infanticide is less than 24 hours and whether the killing takes place inside or outside the womb, so not sure why you be,ievevthat significantly differentiates the two.
C. You so sure about that? I'm not. Several states have no limitations whatsoever. No "full stop,". If you are so sure all late term abortions are justifiable due to life of mother or fetus, then why would you object to a law requiring that?

POSTED BY MIRANDA7

"Her doctors and the Hospital board did not have the courage to do the right thing." right thing in that case was to provide the woman with an abortion.

So, I refer you to my #46 post again.

"#50 According to you the only difference between abortion and infanticide is less than 24 hours and whether the killing takes place inside or outside the womb, so not sure why you be,ievevthat significantly differentiates the two.:

Right here you are ignoring the fact that an abortion requires another individual be involved in the act, i.e. a doctor which is what I support. Infanticide is by definition done after the baby is born, so NOT involving a doctor (necessarily-unless the doctor is involved with killing a newborn). There is CLEARLY a differentiation between the 2-one (late term abortions) is done to protect the life/health of the mother the other is killing a newborn baby. What you claim would be an equivalent would require a doctor to abort a fetus right before delivery (for convenience to the mother), which honestly I can't imagine happening, ever. but I will go far as to say I am fine with outlawing 40th week abortions when the life of the mother is not at risk. I have zero problem with that.

#71 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 04:29 PM | Reply

To repeat: There are TWO people on this board I will not engage with, because you REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions then argue against those misrepresented positions. That is TRUTHHURTS and SNOOFY. Play amongst yourselves, little trolls, grownups are talking.
#68 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

#72 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 04:58 PM | Reply

"you REPEATEDLY misrepresent my positions"

We repeatedly QUOTE your positions.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 05:05 PM | Reply

To be perfectly clear. I have NEVER said I wanted Roe overturned.

So did you want it overturned or not?

Yes or no, Miranda!

You have given up your right to remain silent.

#74 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-08-03 05:13 PM | Reply

The problem with pro lifers is, their only argument for being pro forced birth is, "oh the poor child!"

Which is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

It's casting judgment on millions of women without knowing anything about them or the circumstances they find themselves in.

It's also been pointed out. A lot of women who need abortions don't want to lose their fetus, but have to due to the unforeseen dangers the pregnancy is causing them.

Women who become pregnant should be trusted to be acting in the best interest of themselves and the future of the unborn child.

That's it. End of story.

Trust women. Jesus did.

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-03 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lee, please see #62. As to my "right to remain silent", I'll waive that for anyone interested in respectful discussion. If you are so inclined, I'll be glad to answer your questions, but I won't be responding to these two trolls.

#76 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 05:45 PM | Reply

The quotes are accurate.
You don't like being held accountable for what you said.

#77 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-03 06:01 PM | Reply

No, I did not want Roe overturned.
#66 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Good to know. I retract any statements to the contrary. I hope in the future you vote for people who will actually do something about this atrocious ruling.

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-03 06:32 PM | Reply

Yav,
Yes, the quotes in this thread are accurate, and I stand behind them, despite the fact that they were dragged over without of context from other threads. If you are interested in a respectful discussion, I am happy to answer your questions. The reason I won't answer the trolls is because they have repeatedly lied about my position on various issues. It didn't start on this thread.

#79 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 07:44 PM | Reply

Joe,
I appreciate your response and candor. A few of my posts have been about the path forward from here, and doing "something" about it. But I'm a realist and my ideas apparently don't sit well with many of you.

#80 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 07:58 PM | Reply

" But I'm a realist and my ideas apparently don't sit well with many of you."

Overturning Roe doesn't sit well with us.
Do you support a law that essentially codifies Roe at a Federal level?

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, I did not want Roe overturned.
#66 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

I find that hard to believe in light of the fact that you have expressed how much against your sense of right and wrong abortion is. I recall you saying something like you feared we will lose our humanity if we continue to allow abortions to take place. I'll see if I can find the quotes, but perhaps you can remember what you have said since you expressed those opinions quite passionately.

#82 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-03 09:04 PM | Reply

No, that's definitely not what I said, you've interpreted and left out some important parts. give me a bit and I'll find the quote ... .

In the meantime, let me explain one thing. I've been very clear that my PERSONAL views are my own, and in general, I do not believe in making laws to force others to conform to my PERSONAL beliefs of right and wrong. That may be hard for you to understand, as it is a very Libertarian concept. If you let that sink in, you may be able to understand me where I am coming from a little better.

#83 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 10:11 PM | Reply

Gal, this is what I actually said, a little different from how you remembered it?

Thank you for your honest viewpoints. My own views have been mischaracterized by other posters. I am not anti-abortion. I have more in common with many of you than not. The sticking point is that I believe abortion is a horrible and some of you do not. I also believe it is necessary, particularly against alternatives that are also horrible (like compelling a rape victim to give birth). Some people can't recognize that these seemingly opposing views can and must coexist. They soothe their minds by pretending it isn't horrible. I think we all lose our humanity when we try to pretend abortion isn't horrible.

#92 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-07-07 04:08 PM | FLAG:

I should correct that. I think we need to do everything we can as a society to reduce the need for abortions. So I guess that makes me anti-abortion. But I am opposed to most of the abortion legislation making the news recently.

#95 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-07-07 04:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#84 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 10:26 PM | Reply

They soothe their minds by pretending it isn't horrible.

A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women. In conclusion, natural human embryo mortality is lower than often claimed and widely accepted. Estimates for total prenatal mortality of 70% or higher are exaggerated and not supported by the available data.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I think you must be referring to later term abortions because early term abortions are more numerous than term births are. Mother Nature is the unquestioned #1 Abortionist of human zygotes/fetuses. And have you ever considered that since science can quantify that the majority of fertilized eggs abort, doesn't that sort of confirm that nature is making biological mistakes itself, bringing on abortions? Isn't it least possible that most fertilizations aren't meant to end in birth?

The bottom line is that humans do not fully understand the dynamics of human reproduction at the point of fertilization. Maybe nature already does its best to try and birth healthy non-sick children by naturally aborting zygotes. Maybe some eggs that implant that weren't meant to, and end up being a one in fill-in-the-blank-number child with a complicated medical ailment or disability. We just don't know this stuff and those making these laws are operating from their religious beliefs, not any real understanding of women's health concerns and the statistical likelihood she can easily have a miscarriage - which then can make her a criminal suspect simply for what nature naturally does to her.

#85 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 10:55 PM | Reply

-They soothe their minds by pretending it isn't horrible. I think we all lose our humanity when we try to pretend abortion isn't horrible.

Reasonable people agree with this.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-03 11:08 PM | Reply

Yes, Tony, I WAS referring to later term abortions, that was the context of the onversation this quote was extracted from.

I agree with everything you just said there.

#87 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 11:17 PM | Reply

"In the meantime, let me explain one thing. I've been very clear that my PERSONAL views are my own, and in general, I do not believe in making laws to force others to conform to my PERSONAL beliefs of right and wrong. That may be hard for you to understand, as it is a very Libertarian concept. If you let that sink in, you may be able to understand me where I am coming from a little better."

Why in the world would that be hard for me to understand? That is precisely the view that many people across the political spectrum hold. Many Catholic Democrats, for example, hold that view when it comes to abortion.

"Gal, this is what I actually said, a little different from how you remembered it?"

Yes, because I also remember comments like these that make it seem like you do not support abortions at 15 weeks for women who are not rape or ------ victims, which means you do not support Roe:

I ask, if a fetus isn't a human being, what is it? And who gets to define that? Apparently there is no real definition, it is the mother's choice whether or not her fetus is a human being. An expectant mother (Liberal or Conservative) generally refers to her fetus as a baby, names him/her/they/them. Talks to them, feels love, takes steps to protect them and grieves their loss if they miscarry. But if the child is unwanted, IT is not human, not a baby, not loved, not protected from harm, okay to destroy. It is hard to wrap my head around that. It is either a human being or not.
#67 | POSTED BY MIRANDA

I strongly believe that ripping a 15 week fetus from limb to limb, crushing its skull and sucking it out in pieces is barbaric. Having a good reason (rape or ------) doesn't make it any less barbaric. HOWEVER, forcing a rape victim, especially a young child to endure the trauma of carrying a baby and give birth is ALSO barbaric. Two horrible outcomes. It isn't feasible to judge each situation case by case. So I would land on the side of protecting the mother over the fetus in cases of rape.
#22 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7
drudge.com

#88 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-03 11:18 PM | Reply

-They soothe their minds by pretending it isn't horrible. I think we all lose our humanity when we try to pretend abortion isn't horrible.
Reasonable people agree with this.
#86 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Well, then I guess I am an unreasonable person because this was my response to Amanda in that thread:

I don't believe abortion is horrible in the first few months. For example, taking the morning after pill is not horrible in my book. Since I don't believe life begins at conception and all life is sacred at the moment of conception, I don't find abortion early in pregnancy to be horrible.

"I think we all lose our humanity when we try to pretend abortion isn't horrible."
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree that use of the morning after pill, for example, is causing us to lose our humanity. If you do, that's fine, and you shouldn't use that pill. A problem arises, however, when people who don't share your opinion are forced to live by it.
#126 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-03 11:23 PM | Reply

Yes, Tony, I WAS referring to later term abortions, that was the context of the onversation this quote was extracted from.
I agree with everything you just said there.
#87 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

That was not clear to me during that discussion. You didn't use the term late term abortions, just abortions. How do you define a late term abortion? At what point does a pregnancy become "late term" in your mind?

#90 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-03 11:26 PM | Reply

"this was my response to Amanda in that thread:"

Sorry, Miranda!

#91 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-03 11:28 PM | Reply

No Gal, you are not an unreasonable person.. The entire thread this was pulled from was a troll --------, which included posts dragged from a previous troll --------, it is not surprising that the context wasn"t clear to all participants, which is one of the reasons I'm not in favor of dragging posts from one thread to another.

#92 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-03 11:57 PM | Reply

And for the record, I also agree with your post #126 above from the previous thread, and I think it old you that then as well.

As far as late term, we were arguing about third trimester and partial birth abortions right before I made that post.

However, in most cases When I have described abortion as horrible but sometimes necessary, I was talking about abortions beyond 15 week. That number has no particular significance to me, it arose from the Dobbs case which launched these discussion.

#93 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 12:06 AM | Reply

"I don't agree that use of the morning after pill, for example, is causing us to lose our humanity."

Nor is what the morning after pill does horrible.
Or pharmaceutical abortion. Likewise not horrible.

Now, one can certainly view abortion as horrible as, say, getting hit with a Hellfire R9X.
But one can also probably understand why some people get taken out with a Hellfire R9X.
And you can maybe even understand that the only person who should have access to the kill switch is the mother.

She gets to do that horrible thing if she wants to. And the fact is, if she really wants to, she's going to find a way.

You mentioned working infanticide cases. Were any of those planned pregnancies? Of course not.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 12:08 AM | Reply

Yes, because I also remember comments like these that make it seem like you do not support abortions at 15 weeks for women who are not rape or ------ victims, which means you do not support Roe

#22 Again, look at context. When I posted that it was in response to a discussion about rape exceptions and MS law. So my response was specific to that. I did not EXCLUDE women who are not rape or ------ victims, and I did not mention Roe, and you didn't ask about either. I don't think it was a fair jump for you to draw a conclusion based on what I DIDN'T say.

#67 Again, context. The posts leading up to that were about 40th week partial birth abortion, MY post was a QUESTION, not a declaration of my views on Roe.

And to reiterate my position (which you said you understand) I do not believe in making laws to force others to conform to my PERSONAL beliefs of right and wrong. So none of the above has much to do with my position on Roe.

#95 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 12:43 AM | Reply

Clarification, , post #95 is in response. To #88 from Gal, sorry for any confusion

#96 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 12:45 AM | Reply

Gal, I always appreciate your insight and respect your viewpoints. I'm glad to answer any questions, but I really don't see the point in rehashing and analyzing my posts from a month old thread. It seems like the point of this is to try to root out perceived inconsistencies to prove I am lying about what my own views and beliefs are. What possible motive could I have to do that?

That seems to be a common accusation around here and I just don't get it. Some folks here are determined to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is some sort of undercover operative with a hidden agenda.

#97 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 01:04 AM | Reply

"I strongly believe that ripping a 15 week fetus from limb to limb, crushing its skull and sucking it out in pieces is barbaric."

The limbs are not "ripped." They are surgically detached.

Tell us the purpose of crushing the skull. Why would they do that? Just to be barbaric, or is there a medical purpose that has to to with evacuating the fetal remains from the womb safely

I responded to the comment that was quoted when you made it. You ignored what I had to say.

That's because you were inciting emotion; your language was designed to be incendiary.

Now you want us to believe you're not that person.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 01:12 AM | Reply

"but I really don't see the point in rehashing and analyzing my posts from a month old thread."

I don't see the problem with it.
Have your views on abortion changed between now and then?
???

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 01:14 AM | Reply

Gal, here was my ONLY post about Roe:

Roe v Wade was a fine and detailed work of judicial activism designed to behave like a statute. It was destined to fail at some point. First, because because it is beyond the scope of the judicial branch to write legislation and second, it was built on a foundation the constitution only precariously supported.

Statutory law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch, and they had a duty to codify Roe some form Alternatively they could have worked to shore up the foundation with long overdue Constitutional Amendments to support modern ideals of human rights. They failed to do either.

I don't think they ever tried because they knew they didn't have the votes. Even during the times when they held both houses and the Presidency, a codification of Roe would not have survived the Democratic process.

They should have been working on a compromise bill that would. It's time to get that done.

#29 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-07-09 08:17 AM | FLAG:

#100 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 01:21 AM | Reply

"And for the record, I also agree with your post #126 above from the previous thread, and I think it old you that then as well."

No, you didn't.

"Gal, I always appreciate your insight and respect your viewpoints. I'm glad to answer any questions, but I really don't see the point in rehashing and analyzing my posts from a month old thread. It seems like the point of this is to try to root out perceived inconsistencies to prove I am lying about what my own views and beliefs are. What possible motive could I have to do that?
That seems to be a common accusation around here and I just don't get it. Some folks here are determined to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is some sort of undercover operative with a hidden agenda.
POSTED BY MIRANDA7"

Several times recently you have said that you have made your position on Roe perfectly clear, and each time I have read that I thought: no, you haven't. At least not to me. I can honestly say I still don't know what your position of Roe is, or more importantly on abortion in general, when it comes to the perspective of public policy. Of course I understand your personal views may differ from what you think the law should be, but I do not know what your feeling about first term abortions are. Open to everyone on demand? Or with certain restrictions? How about second term abortions? Third term? Should the states be allowed to decide? What would that federal "compromise bill" you mention above look like to your eyes?

#101 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-04 06:20 AM | Reply

I was trying to work out what I think a reasonable compromise would be earlier this year, back before Roe was overturned:

My own stance is that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, illegal in the third trimester, expect in cases of fatal fetal deformity/disease and/or to save the life of the mother. I'm not sure where the dividing line should be in the second trimester for legal vs illegal abortions. Somewhere around 16 weeks perhaps.
#56 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

#56 Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle could figure this out. For example, maybe say first trimester legal, then 12 to 16 weeks legal for rape and ------ survivors, who may need a little more time to get their acts together due to trauma. After that abortions illegal except for health of the mother or fetal disease/deformity.
#57 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

drudge.com

#102 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-04 06:52 AM | Reply

PS I also think that abortions during the first trimester should be easy to get for women in all 50 states. They shouldn't have to drive for miles and jump through hoops to get one. Needless to say, I don't think the morning after pill should be banned, and I do think contraception should be easily obtained and affordable as well.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-04 07:10 AM | Reply

Third Trimester begins at 27 weeks, by the way.
And no one has a third trimester abortion without a damn good reason.
Abortion needs to be between the woman and her medical caregivers.
Not busy-bodies that think they know what's best.
Not religious moral scolds that sit in judgement on their thrones worshipping their own god, pretending they can speak for it when they can't even point to their holy scriptures to back up their personal beliefs.
Not the State which only confuses everything as it tries to legislate morality without regard to each situation and ends up terrifying everyone so more women die.

#104 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 07:56 AM | Reply

"Third Trimester begins at 27 weeks, by the way."

Right you are, Yav:

First Trimester (0 to 13 Weeks)
Second Trimester (14 to 26 Weeks)
Third Trimester (27 to 40 Weeks)

#105 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-04 08:05 AM | Reply

I don't have time to answer right now, but my PERSONAL views are very similar to yours, and pretty common to those of the majority of Americans. Unfortunately, the extremists on both ends are driving the public conversation.

My views about what public policy should be are quite different, driven by my Libertairian philosophy about government. It will take more time to explain that. Maybe later.

#106 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 10:51 AM | Reply

In the meantime, let me explain one thing. I've been very clear that my PERSONAL views are my own, and in general, I do not believe in making laws to force others to conform to my PERSONAL beliefs of right and wrong. That may be hard for you to understand, as it is a very Libertarian concept.

Surely there are limits to that principle though, or you'd hold the view that we should have no laws at all, lest they be an imposition of your personal views on others. For example, do you support, in terms of an explicitly permissive statute, the right of a pregnant woman to abort a baby up until it is full term? If not, then there is a line to be drawn somewhere, which is the entire point of this debate. You don't get to skirt around the issue and say you don't want your views enshrined into statute unless you literally prefer there be no law addressing the matter whatsoever.

#107 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 10:52 AM | Reply

I posted a thread with article (linked below) in an attempt to start a real conversation to learn about the views of others. all I got was rude remarks.

drudge.com

#108 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 10:56 AM | Reply

Yes joe, I agree and I am not trying to skirt around the issue. I haven't gone deeply into it because nobody here cares to actually discuss it with an open mind. In this particular environment I have learned that I get trolled no matter what I say, they just want a piata to beat on. I have to go now but I'll try to answer your specific questions when I get back.

#109 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 11:00 AM | Reply

Additionally, to make the following claim (as you have) illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how Constitutional law operates:

Roe v Wade was a fine and detailed work of judicial activism designed to behave like a statute. It was destined to fail at some point. First, because because it is beyond the scope of the judicial branch to write legislation
Roe did not simply say, "abortion up until (x) weeks is legal" the way a statute would. In a nutshell, Roe addressed the complex question of when the state interest in preserving life intercedes with a woman's right to personal privacy, such that a different level of constitutional scrutiny would apply in reviewing statutes regulating abortion the closer a pregnancy was to term.

SCOTUS makes decisions about what level of Constitutional scrutiny applies to various situations all of the time. That is not "writing a statute" or "judicial activism." It is their job.

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 11:02 AM | Reply

They soothe their minds by pretending it isn't horrible. I think we all lose our humanity when we try to pretend abortion isn't horrible.

What's more horrible is a mother who wants to have a child, finding out that being pregnant is a serious danger to her life.

Then being denied medical treatment to save her.

Because some activist judges decided to strike down a law which gave women the final say on their own lives.

What's horrible are anti abortionists, demonizing women. Casting judgments upon them based on their own ignorance and bigotry.

It's time to trust women.

#111 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 11:50 AM | Reply

"They soothe their minds by pretending it isn't horrible. I think we all lose our humanity when we try to pretend abortion isn't horrible."

This is an example of a strawman. No one anywhere any place any time has seriously claimed that abortion isn't horrible. See that sets up a false strawman that can be attacked by saying people have to "sooth their mind by pretending"

Classic strawman

#112 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 11:57 AM | Reply

Please keep in mind that Miranda has equated late term abortion (including or possibly specifically 40th week abortion, which I'm not sure is an actual thing) with infanticide-killing a new born baby.

#113 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 12:02 PM | Reply

Please keep in mind that I doubt respond to TH because he/she/it is a liar and a troll

#114 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 12:55 PM | Reply

Joe, getting to your questions now:

"You don't get to skirt around the issue and say you don't want your views enshrined into statute unless you literally prefer there be no law addressing the matter whatsoever."

Actually, I DON'T want my views enshrined in statute. I want the views of the PEOPLE enshrined in statute, achieved via a democratic process. I am but one person, one vote and do not feel I have the right to dictate laws that suit my preferences. The people collectively have that right. So what I "prefer" is that the people come together and encourage their representatives to find common ground and enact a statute, or statutes that are consistent with the will of the people.

My views about Roe:

Roe v Wade was a fine and detailed work of judicial activism designed to behave like a statute. It was destined to fail at some point. First, because because it is beyond the scope of the judicial branch to write legislation and second, it was built on a foundation the constitution only precariously supported.
Statutory law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch, and they had a duty to codify Roe some form Alternatively they could have worked to shore up the foundation with long overdue Constitutional Amendments to support modern ideals of human rights. They failed to do either.
I don't think they ever tried because they knew they didn't have the votes. Even during the times when they held both houses and the Presidency, a codification of Roe would not have survived the Democratic process.
They should have been working on a compromise bill that would. It's time to get that done.

#29 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-07-09 08:17 AM | FLAG:

Millions of pages have been published with legal scholars litigating those same points over the last 50 years. I see no point rehashing that here between us amateurs. You have your opinion and that is mine. I don't expect you to agree and I'm not going to go around in circles defending it. The abortion issue in the 60's and 70's was a societal problem that needed to be solved, but I believe it was a problem that belonged to the people, via the Legislative Branch. I don't think the Supreme Court was the proper venue to solve it. The Supreme Court was not designed to write statutes or be the arbiters of "right and wrong". Their job is to determine Constitutionality. The Roe decision was only precariously supported by the Constitution and guaranteed to fail at some point.

That I expected it to fail doesn't mean I wanted that to happen. My "preference" (that the people come together to find common ground and enact a statute) hasn't occurred, and Roe provided a tenuous bit of stability for the past 50 years. The chaotic and dangerous situation we are in now was a predictable result of the overturning of Roe. So no, on a personal level, I didn't want Roe to be overturned.

#115 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 03:25 PM | Reply

If you really want to know my personal "preference", its pretty similar to what Gal had to say:

My own stance is that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, illegal in the third trimester, expect in cases of fatal fetal deformity/disease and/or to save the life of the mother. I'm not sure where the dividing line should be in the second trimester for legal vs illegal abortions. Somewhere around 16 weeks perhaps.
#56 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

#56 Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle could figure this out. For example, maybe say first trimester legal, then 12 to 16 weeks legal for rape and ------ survivors, who may need a little more time to get their acts together due to trauma. After that abortions illegal except for health of the mother or fetal disease/deformity.
#57 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I think that is very similar to how the majority of the U.S. Population feels, but all we hear is the most extreme voices at each end of the bell curve. Gal's viewpoint is roughly where the consensus is going to end up to get anything meaningful accomplished Legislatively.

#116 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 03:37 PM | Reply

An interesting article on the pont of Federal vs. State abortion legislations

www.newyorker.com

#117 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 03:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort