Republican Steve King: if not for incest and rape 'would there be any population left?'

[laylalex 7,249]

13 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   NB wasn't doing that. He said he supports a woman's right to choose an abortion up to a point. That point is when the fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. He is saying make the decision before that time. That is in line with supreme court opinion as well.

But he is also characterizing women who undertake late term abortions as somehow monstrous. A woman who terminates at 7 months is a woman who almost certainly is terminating a much-wanted pregnancy, and is faced with the choice of bearing a child that may suffer and die soon outside of the womb, or terminate. I'm sure you know the number of late term abortions is extremely low, and are done only for the purposes that MAKE them legal under the law (health of mother or incompatibility with life). When people throw around statements like, 

 

13 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

At 7 months pregnant,  you are way past breeding decisions. 

 

If you become pregnant and carry a fetus 7 months,  you have already made a decision.

it is to discount the heartbreak of women and frequently men who must make the very most difficult decision of their lives.

 

Most -- by far -- of the abortions that happen in this country happen in the first trimester. To focus on the extremely few and tragic incidents where a pregnancy is ended after supposed viability is to, in my opinion, make the whole process seem barbaric when it is, especially early in a pregnancy, safer than giving birth. I don't need to preach to you, you get it. But there are too many out there who want to get involved in women's private health care decisions for so-called moral reasons who do not look at why a woman might need to terminate at a very late stage. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But he is also characterizing women who undertake late term abortions as somehow monstrous. A woman who terminates at 7 months is a woman who almost certainly is terminating a much-wanted pregnancy, and is faced with the choice of bearing a child that may suffer and die soon outside of the womb, or terminate. I'm sure you know the number of late term abortions is extremely low, and are done only for the purposes that MAKE them legal under the law (health of mother or incompatibility with life). When people throw around statements like, 

 

   I didn’t see him pass judgement on anyone. He said it shouldn’t be allowed as an elective option at that point. 

 

  I would guess I have seen more babies born at 26 weeks than the average person. They are tiny. They are fragile. Sometimes they barely weigh a pound. The next few weeks, every simple act such as breathing is a struggle for life. But they are alive. They look like babies. And they are fighting for life. My personal opinion is the decision has to be made before that. A baby at 26 weeks gestation will likely survive outside the womb and go on to lead a normal life. Just like a baby at 37 weeks gestation  or a baby having their 1st birthday party.  It’s too late to decide you don’t want a baby at that point because you already have one.

 

   While my opinion may not matter, my vote does. As much as I support a woman’s right to chooseI would never vote for any candidate who supported late term abortion for any reason except the mother’s health being at risk.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

3 hours ago, laylalex said:

But he is also characterizing women who undertake late term abortions as somehow monstrous. A woman who terminates at 7 months is a woman who almost certainly is terminating a much-wanted pregnancy, and is faced with the choice of bearing a child that may suffer and die soon outside of the womb, or terminate. I'm sure you know the number of late term abortions is extremely low, and are done only for the purposes that MAKE them legal under the law (health of mother or incompatibility with life). When people throw around statements like, 

 

it is to discount the heartbreak of women and frequently men who must make the very most difficult decision of their lives.

 

Most -- by far -- of the abortions that happen in this country happen in the first trimester. To focus on the extremely few and tragic incidents where a pregnancy is ended after supposed viability is to, in my opinion, make the whole process seem barbaric when it is, especially early in a pregnancy, safer than giving birth. I don't need to preach to you, you get it. But there are too many out there who want to get involved in women's private health care decisions for so-called moral reasons who do not look at why a woman might need to terminate at a very late stage. 

I clearly said I was ok with late term abortion if the health of the mother or child was at stake. Not as a form og birth control.

 

You just inventing stuff now 

[Shiran 1,134]

22 hours ago, fip & jim said:

Vasectomies are reversible. Why not make all men have them? And then, if they are truly ready to be a father, they can undo them. You have problems with this? Yeah, isn't it awful to try to regulate men's bodies this way. 

I don't think anyone should have objection to that, assuming they were safe and reversible. Last I checked they are working on something where instead of severing vas deferens they inject some polymer that can be dissolved on demand when male is prepared to have reproduce. I think once that is perfected it should be mandatory procedure pre-puberty. As alternative to male American circumcision. Having children should not be something left to chance in humans, it should be a deliberate choice that is completely decoupled from a mere act of fornication. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

But he is also characterizing women who undertake late term abortions as somehow monstrous. A woman who terminates at 7 months is a woman who almost certainly is terminating a much-wanted pregnancy, and is faced with the choice of bearing a child that may suffer and die soon outside of the womb, or terminate. I'm sure you know the number of late term abortions is extremely low, and are done only for the purposes that MAKE them legal under the law (health of mother or incompatibility with life). When people throw around statements like, 

 

it is to discount the heartbreak of women and frequently men who must make the very most difficult decision of their lives.

 

Most -- by far -- of the abortions that happen in this country happen in the first trimester. To focus on the extremely few and tragic incidents where a pregnancy is ended after supposed viability is to, in my opinion, make the whole process seem barbaric when it is, especially early in a pregnancy, safer than giving birth. I don't need to preach to you, you get it. But there are too many out there who want to get involved in women's private health care decisions for so-called moral reasons who do not look at why a woman might need to terminate at a very late stage. 

Can you share some factual stats on this claim?  I'd appreciate the chance to review such.  It seems HIPPA (not the female water beast version)  prevents too much data from being shared.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Shiran said:

I don't think anyone should have objection to that, assuming they were safe and reversible. Last I checked they are working on something where instead of severing vas deferens they inject some polymer that can be dissolved on demand when male is prepared to have reproduce.(b) I think once that is perfected it should be mandatory procedure pre-puberty. (/b)As alternative to male American circumcision. Having children should not be something left to chance in humans, it should be a deliberate choice that is completely decoupled from a mere act of fornication. 

How barbaric!  And it takes away a young males autonomy!!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, Shiran said:

I don't think anyone should have objection to that, assuming they were safe and reversible. Last I checked they are working on something where instead of severing vas deferens they inject some polymer that can be dissolved on demand when male is prepared to have reproduce. I think once that is perfected it should be mandatory procedure pre-puberty. As alternative to male American circumcision. Having children should not be something left to chance in humans, it should be a deliberate choice that is completely decoupled from a mere act of fornication. 

 

   I object. They are not free and there are risks involved with the procedure. If I'm to cheap to pay $35 a month for phone service I wont use, I am damn well not paying $1000's for a vasectomy I don't need. The reversibility part is not guaranteed either, but it does cost as much as the initial procedure. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Can you share some factual stats on this claim?  I'd appreciate the chance to review such.  It seems HIPPA (not the female water beast version)  prevents too much data from being shared.

 

  I have shared those stats with you in the past. Do you really need to see them again? Abortions after the 2nd trimester are a small percentage of the total. The stats are easily available with a google search. 

[yuna628 9,530]

1 hour ago, Shiran said:

I don't think anyone should have objection to that, assuming they were safe and reversible. Last I checked they are working on something where instead of severing vas deferens they inject some polymer that can be dissolved on demand when male is prepared to have reproduce. I think once that is perfected it should be mandatory procedure pre-puberty. As alternative to male American circumcision. Having children should not be something left to chance in humans, it should be a deliberate choice that is completely decoupled from a mere act of fornication. 

I do not agree with the practice of mandatory 'reversible' sterilizations anymore than I agree with the practice of circumcision. It takes away bodily autonomy. The government needs to get out of our bedrooms, sex lives, abortions, birth control and the decisions we make as free people involving them. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

27 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I do not agree with the practice of mandatory 'reversible' sterilizations anymore than I agree with the practice of circumcision. It takes away bodily autonomy. The government needs to get out of our bedrooms, sex lives, abortions, birth control and the decisions we make as free people involving them. 

I am all for making people with a child. Who are receiving foodcstamps, Medicaid,  welfare etc, take mandatory birth control. 

I know far to many wimmens on welfare that have more children on purpose 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I am all for making people with a child. Who are receiving foodcstamps, Medicaid,  welfare etc, take mandatory birth control. 

I know far to many wimmens on welfare that have more children on purpose 

 

  Huh?

[yuna628 9,530]

22 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I am all for making people with a child. Who are receiving foodcstamps, Medicaid,  welfare etc, take mandatory birth control. 

I know far to many wimmens on welfare that have more children on purpose 

Just because you don't like a person's stupid decisions in life does not mean you get to take away someone's bodily autonomy. That is not the sort of freedom this country is based on.

[fip & jim 452]

I was making a point by drawing parallels about how females are actually treated. I get that some of you don't get my English humour. I was showing how ridiculous it would be to treat boys this way. I don't believe in forcibly neutralizing males. I was switching it up to, hopefully, illustrate how women are treated. I'm done with this "debate". 

[laylalex 7,249]

3 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Can you share some factual stats on this claim?  I'd appreciate the chance to review such.  It seems HIPPA (not the female water beast version)  prevents too much data from being shared.

Slightly more than 1% of all abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later, though "21 weeks" doesn't necessarily mean that it's late term. "Late term" is an undefined term. The last statistics I have ever seen for this are from 4 years ago. The Guttmacher Institute is a good place to start: https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/later-abortion

 

This was an article I read earlier this year (not sure if it is behind a paywall as I subscribe -- and no, I am not using my ex's login for this, lol): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-abortion-law-in-new-york-will-change-and-how-it-wont It really stuck with me as someone who has had her own fertility issues -- what if I found out very late along that the baby -- and I would think about it being a baby at that point, not a fetus -- was incompatible with life? I would hope that there would be compassion for whatever decision I made. This part resonated:

Quote

People have certain assumptions about late-term abortion, she told me. They imagine a woman spontaneously getting cold feet in her third trimester, or an indecisive dawdler who decides, on a whim, at twenty-seven weeks, that she’s simply done. “But, in reality,” Kimport told me, “these are people who were planning to continue the pregnancy and obtained a piece of vital information that made that change. Or they’re people who just did not know that they were pregnant—people with other existing physical conditions, or people without typical symptoms—who then knew they didn’t want to continue it, and then a series of obstacles pushed them over the line.”

 

5 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I clearly said I was ok with late term abortion if the health of the mother or child was at stake. Not as a form og birth control.

 

You just inventing stuff now 

I'm sorry if I misread you. But when you said you were not okay with women seeking terminations at 7 months, it just didn't read that way to me, since most if not nearly all of these women are having abortions for heartbreaking reasons. Please accept my apologies if we are on the same page. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Just because you don't like a person's stupid decisions in life does not mean you get to take away someone's bodily autonomy. That is not the sort of freedom this country is based on.

If my tax dollars are paying for their poor decsion5. I disagree