Would you live in a state that bans abortion?

[TPIG]

I would, and I do (mostly banned at least). Proud of it

[TPIG]

I would, and I do (mostly banned at least). Proud of it

Only asking: what do you think of this incident? Or this one? What do you think of socially conservative Republicans like Neal Collins of South Carolina?

I'll simply refer you to my comments I posted actually on that first thread you linked.

Pro-abortion lefties: "You can't point to the barbarity of late term-abortions as an argument against abortion because it happens in such a small proportion of cases."

Also Pro-abortion lefties: "Here's every fringe case ever conceived as a cover to support the broad-based 'freedom' to terminate a pregnancy for any reason"

This case is awful and terribly sad. Obviously if death of the infant is inevitable anyway, terminating the life to prevent further suffering would be a just decision. That is wholly different than abortions in the vast majority of other cases, where death of the infant is not an inevitability. It's disingenuous to hide behind cases like this, if you would have also been fine for the infant's death, no matter the reason that the woman had.

Pro-abortion lefties: "You can't point to the barbarity of late term-abortions as an argument against abortion because it happens in such a small proportion of cases."

Also Pro-abortion lefties: "Here's every fringe case ever conceived as a cover to support the broad-based 'freedom' to terminate a pregnancy for any reason"

This case is awful and terribly sad. Obviously if death of the infant is inevitable anyway, terminating the life to prevent further suffering would be a just decision. That is wholly different than abortions in the vast majority of other cases, where death of the infant is not an inevitability. It's disingenuous to hide behind cases like this, if you would have also been fine for the infant's death, no matter the reason that the woman had.

Who's "hiding behind a case like this?" We're simply reporting on an ongoing story that is the direct result of anti-abortion policy. This is hardcore projection if I've ever heard it.

Don't see how it's projection given my opposition to abortion in both early and late stages. What exactly am I hiding behind?
More importantly, it very much is disingenuous to use cases like this as a way to argue against abortion bans, more broadly, just as it would be disingenuous to act as if all abortions were equivalent to late-term abortions, given their rarity. For a large portion of the left, the standard position is abortion at any time for any reason. So to use, definitionally, fringe cases as the spearhead of the argument against abortion bans is dishonest and a way to deflect from the broader truth regarding the nature of abortion.

Pro-abortion lefties: "You can't point to the barbarity of late term-abortions as an argument against abortion because it happens in such a small proportion of cases."

Also Pro-abortion lefties: "Here's every fringe case ever conceived as a cover to support the broad-based 'freedom' to terminate a pregnancy for any reason"

This case is awful and terribly sad. Obviously if death of the infant is inevitable anyway, terminating the life to prevent further suffering would be a just decision. That is wholly different than abortions in the vast majority of other cases, where death of the infant is not an inevitability. It's disingenuous to hide behind cases like this, if you would have also been fine for the infant's death, no matter the reason that the woman had.

Who's "hiding behind a case like this?" We're simply reporting on an ongoing story that is the direct result of anti-abortion policy. This is hardcore projection if I've ever heard it.

Don't see how it's projection given my opposition to abortion in both early and late stages. What exactly am I hiding behind?
More importantly, it very much is disingenuous to use cases like this as a way to argue against abortion bans, more broadly, just as it would be disingenuous to act as if all abortions were equivalent to late-term abortions, given their rarity. For a large portion of the left, the standard position is abortion at any time for any reason. So to use, definitionally, fringe cases as the spearhead of the argument against abortion bans is dishonest and a way to deflect from the broader truth regarding the nature of abortion.

If all women are going to forced to deliver all babies / fetuses, even dead or deformed ones, unless they can PROVE that their life is in danger (and we've seen that the burden of proof is high), then how is this a fringe case, in that sense? I haven't looked at the statistics, but if you compare how many women become 12 weeks pregnant with how many women 12+ weeks pregnant end up with a dead or deformed fetus, the number probably is not astronomically small.

It's a fringe case in that the vast majority of abortions are performed for reasons other than the life of the mother, and also because the vast majority of pregnancies do not involve birth defects that are fatal for the infant.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, 2 - 3% of all pregnancies result in the presence of defects. Obviously, most of these defects are non-lethal to the infant (down syndrome, cleft palate, limb defects, etc). Bringing up a case such as this one (Acrania appears in  1 in every 20,000 pregnancies) or others that lefties on the forum love to mention (5 year olds getting pregnant, for example) are very much fringe cases that mask the broader intention of seeing all abortion restrictions lifted.

[TPIG]

I would, and I do (mostly banned at least). Proud of it

Only asking: what do you think of this incident? Or this one? What do you think of socially conservative Republicans like Neal Collins of South Carolina?

I'll simply refer you to my comments I posted actually on that first thread you linked.

Pro-abortion lefties: "You can't point to the barbarity of late term-abortions as an argument against abortion because it happens in such a small proportion of cases."

Also Pro-abortion lefties: "Here's every fringe case ever conceived as a cover to support the broad-based 'freedom' to terminate a pregnancy for any reason"

This case is awful and terribly sad. Obviously if death of the infant is inevitable anyway, terminating the life to prevent further suffering would be a just decision. That is wholly different than abortions in the vast majority of other cases, where death of the infant is not an inevitability. It's disingenuous to hide behind cases like this, if you would have also been fine for the infant's death, no matter the reason that the woman had.

That addresses the Louisiana incident - but what about the Ohio-Indiana one? That could’ve been easily avoided if there was some sort of exception, if just for rape/incest, if just only for a limited number of weeks.

As DT said in that case,

If there's a legal reporting requirement on providers who provide abortion in cases of rape/incest, then it should be enforced.

The situation is beyond depressing, and I'd love to accept those exceptions, but a life is a life is a life, and I have to eat the results of policies that I support.