The name of your publication is "Keep Maine Free" and you advocate consistently against vaccination mandates. Clearly, this legislation (LD1619) is aimed at protecting the freedom of women to make decisions for their health, their bodies, and their lives. How can you be opposed to legislation like this? I assure you that no woman has a late term abortion except as a necessity. I live in a state where abortion is illegal and there is no protection for the mother, even if having the baby puts her life at risk. Surely respecting the decisions of women and allowing them to access medical care that maintains their liberty, freedom, and autonomy goes along with your philosophy? I don't understand this.
Thank you for your comment, questions and willingness to engage in such an important conversation. To your first point, I do not believe it's clear that LD1619 is aimed at protecting women's rights. Under current the Maine law, a pregnant woman in the 3rd trimester can access abortion if her life is in danger. LD 1619 creates access to abortion at any time for any reason. This bill is aimed squarely at legalizing the intentional destruction of a viable, human life. For a newborn baby, we all agree that the responsibility (re: choice) of any pregnant mother must be to care for their child - born or unborn. If a mother cannot care for their child, society has a responsibility to aid in the care and development, not aid and legalize the destruction of that child's life. A 7, 8 and 9 month old unborn baby has very little developmental difference to a new born. Many are born as early as 24 weeks and live full lives. This is an argument for the bodily autonomy of the baby in question. Just as it is the responsibility of all each of us to respect the bodily autonomy of one another, it is incumbent of each of us to extend that same respect for bodily autonomy to a viable, unborn baby.
To your point on the vaccine, mandates are not constitutional. Each of us should be able to choose whether or not to take a “vaccine”. We should not be forced to take anything that we do not want. People were forced to take the Covid vaccine or lose their jobs! Communism much?!? Look up Nuremberg 75. At this point this specific vaccine has been scientifically proven to not prevent transmission nor prevent contracting Covid 19.
To your second point, the idea of late stage abortions is comparable to child sacrifice. Your promotion of murdering children is abominable. The choices a woman has is to be responsible with her choices including her sexual activities and use protective measures if she is so against having a child that she is willing to murder a viable baby (viability is considered at 20 weeks gestation). There are laws on the books that protect women’s health when in a life and death situation. “If you don’t have a mother, you don’t have a baby” so goes the saying. Ectopic pregnancies (as opposed to IUPs or intrauterine pregnancies) are considered a medical emergency for the mother, treated as such and terminated-these occur early on in pregnancy.
Also, most reasonable human beings do not believe that a woman who has been sexually assaulted should be forced to proceed with a pregnancy. I don’t know anyone who is saying that underage girls who have conceived (abuse) should ever be forced to proceed with a pregnancy. Maine has existing abortion laws on the books. Mills wants to take this to a whole other level. It is not about the rights of women, it’s about the rights of “doctors” to be able to kill babies. Also I would encourage you to review the cornerstone of Planned Parenthood & Margaret Sanger’s work and her belief in Eugenics. She was a racist who wanted to eliminate all black people. Why do you think most abortion clinics are based in communities of color?
Furthermore, the developing baby has a SEPARATE DNA from the mother, so technically it’s not “my body, my choice”. Should people who are on life support be considered “a clump of cells” and immediately removed from life support because they can no longer sustain themselves without outside support?
So based on what I read about what you wrote above, it sounds like your argument is that women who are unemployed, poor and need assistance are putting too much of a burden on society, giving you the platform to promote the proposed late stage abortion. Is that what you’re saying? Because that’s how it reads. As though the love that a mother has for her children does not matter. By the way, I am a working woman, a mother and someone who overcame poverty with 3 degrees. Stop patronizing women by portraying us as unable to overcome obstacles. I’m so tired of this narrative.
How is this bill not aimed at protecting a woman's right to choose what happens with her body? Also, you are not answering my original point which is that the title of your blog, "Keep Maine Free" implies a focus on liberty for all people.
I am arguing for the liberty of unborn, viable human people. A question you may have to wrestle with here - when does life begin? At what point in development does someone have the right to liberty, freedom, and life?
I hear what you are saying. I believe that viable life starts when a person is born, not before that. I believe in the rights of women to make decisions for themselves. Babies can’t make decisions for themselves, and we must take care of them after they are born. But until Maine develops additional programs to care for babies born to moms who can’t afford to take care of them, who aren’t housed, who are under-employed , then I don’t see how your perspective helps children. Go into any under-resourced elementary school and you can see what happens when parents can’t afford to take care of their children. This issue isn’t as simple as : allow those babies to be born and tada! Their lives are fine. The issue is trusting women to make decisions that are informed and best for them. Women will always take care of people and children. We are also observant and strategic and understanding.
Hi. I am not patronizing you at all. I am asking you questions as I find your philosophies contradictory. If YOUR choice as a woman who overcame obstacles to earn 3 degrees is to not have an abortion, then that is absolutely your right. But why is it a right of anyone to tell any other woman on the planet what her choices should or should not be? In your last comment, you mention that it is "The choices a woman has is (sic) to be responsible with her choices including her sexual activities and use protective measures if she is so against having a child that she is willing to murder a viable baby (viability is considered at 20 weeks gestation)." This does not mention the role of men in pregnancy at all. I am not going to comment on Margaret Sanger and PP right now as it does not relate to the legislation you posted about. I am also a woman who has overcome obstacles and has degrees (I don't know how this is relevant here). I mainly think that the choice to have an abortion is the hardest choice a woman will ever make, but it is important that every child is a wanted child. I will never believe that doctors will engage in child sacrifice? My impression from reading your bio is that you are a scientist. It seems that in this context, science goes out the window. I have appreciated your perspective on COVID numbers in Maine. But in this case, your opinion is overshadowing facts and societal needs. I am fine with the fact that you are anti-abortion. That is your right. But no one else gets to make that decision for me or for anyone else. Thank you.
I think you are mixing my comments with another readers, but that's ok. I'm going to clear this up a bit. I'm against late-term abortion primarily because it takes the life of another human. Period. I can't think another scenario where we consider it morally right for one end the life of another human in order to have the kind of life one wants or because the circumstances are too challenging. A mother would never be permitted to end the life of her 2 month old. There would be no excuse granted - be it financial hardship, mental illness or - as you mentioned - convenience and carrier goals. A viable baby at 20+ weeks has every right to life as the 2 month old - that's my bottom line. In the same way that we should support, care for the mother of a newborn in crisis - we do the same for the new born. It is incumbent on society to do so for the unborn viable life in question. Like you and I have bodily autonomy to refuse a vaccine that must be respected at all costs, the bodily autonomy of the unborn viable child must be respected and protected. To that end - it is absolutely the right - even the responsibility - of us all to protect that life, be it inside you or any woman. Our laws should reflect that.
The name of your publication is "Keep Maine Free" and you advocate consistently against vaccination mandates. Clearly, this legislation (LD1619) is aimed at protecting the freedom of women to make decisions for their health, their bodies, and their lives. How can you be opposed to legislation like this? I assure you that no woman has a late term abortion except as a necessity. I live in a state where abortion is illegal and there is no protection for the mother, even if having the baby puts her life at risk. Surely respecting the decisions of women and allowing them to access medical care that maintains their liberty, freedom, and autonomy goes along with your philosophy? I don't understand this.
Thank you for your comment, questions and willingness to engage in such an important conversation. To your first point, I do not believe it's clear that LD1619 is aimed at protecting women's rights. Under current the Maine law, a pregnant woman in the 3rd trimester can access abortion if her life is in danger. LD 1619 creates access to abortion at any time for any reason. This bill is aimed squarely at legalizing the intentional destruction of a viable, human life. For a newborn baby, we all agree that the responsibility (re: choice) of any pregnant mother must be to care for their child - born or unborn. If a mother cannot care for their child, society has a responsibility to aid in the care and development, not aid and legalize the destruction of that child's life. A 7, 8 and 9 month old unborn baby has very little developmental difference to a new born. Many are born as early as 24 weeks and live full lives. This is an argument for the bodily autonomy of the baby in question. Just as it is the responsibility of all each of us to respect the bodily autonomy of one another, it is incumbent of each of us to extend that same respect for bodily autonomy to a viable, unborn baby.
To your point on the vaccine, mandates are not constitutional. Each of us should be able to choose whether or not to take a “vaccine”. We should not be forced to take anything that we do not want. People were forced to take the Covid vaccine or lose their jobs! Communism much?!? Look up Nuremberg 75. At this point this specific vaccine has been scientifically proven to not prevent transmission nor prevent contracting Covid 19.
To your second point, the idea of late stage abortions is comparable to child sacrifice. Your promotion of murdering children is abominable. The choices a woman has is to be responsible with her choices including her sexual activities and use protective measures if she is so against having a child that she is willing to murder a viable baby (viability is considered at 20 weeks gestation). There are laws on the books that protect women’s health when in a life and death situation. “If you don’t have a mother, you don’t have a baby” so goes the saying. Ectopic pregnancies (as opposed to IUPs or intrauterine pregnancies) are considered a medical emergency for the mother, treated as such and terminated-these occur early on in pregnancy.
Also, most reasonable human beings do not believe that a woman who has been sexually assaulted should be forced to proceed with a pregnancy. I don’t know anyone who is saying that underage girls who have conceived (abuse) should ever be forced to proceed with a pregnancy. Maine has existing abortion laws on the books. Mills wants to take this to a whole other level. It is not about the rights of women, it’s about the rights of “doctors” to be able to kill babies. Also I would encourage you to review the cornerstone of Planned Parenthood & Margaret Sanger’s work and her belief in Eugenics. She was a racist who wanted to eliminate all black people. Why do you think most abortion clinics are based in communities of color?
Furthermore, the developing baby has a SEPARATE DNA from the mother, so technically it’s not “my body, my choice”. Should people who are on life support be considered “a clump of cells” and immediately removed from life support because they can no longer sustain themselves without outside support?
So based on what I read about what you wrote above, it sounds like your argument is that women who are unemployed, poor and need assistance are putting too much of a burden on society, giving you the platform to promote the proposed late stage abortion. Is that what you’re saying? Because that’s how it reads. As though the love that a mother has for her children does not matter. By the way, I am a working woman, a mother and someone who overcame poverty with 3 degrees. Stop patronizing women by portraying us as unable to overcome obstacles. I’m so tired of this narrative.
How is this bill not aimed at protecting a woman's right to choose what happens with her body? Also, you are not answering my original point which is that the title of your blog, "Keep Maine Free" implies a focus on liberty for all people.
I am arguing for the liberty of unborn, viable human people. A question you may have to wrestle with here - when does life begin? At what point in development does someone have the right to liberty, freedom, and life?
I hear what you are saying. I believe that viable life starts when a person is born, not before that. I believe in the rights of women to make decisions for themselves. Babies can’t make decisions for themselves, and we must take care of them after they are born. But until Maine develops additional programs to care for babies born to moms who can’t afford to take care of them, who aren’t housed, who are under-employed , then I don’t see how your perspective helps children. Go into any under-resourced elementary school and you can see what happens when parents can’t afford to take care of their children. This issue isn’t as simple as : allow those babies to be born and tada! Their lives are fine. The issue is trusting women to make decisions that are informed and best for them. Women will always take care of people and children. We are also observant and strategic and understanding.
Hi. I am not patronizing you at all. I am asking you questions as I find your philosophies contradictory. If YOUR choice as a woman who overcame obstacles to earn 3 degrees is to not have an abortion, then that is absolutely your right. But why is it a right of anyone to tell any other woman on the planet what her choices should or should not be? In your last comment, you mention that it is "The choices a woman has is (sic) to be responsible with her choices including her sexual activities and use protective measures if she is so against having a child that she is willing to murder a viable baby (viability is considered at 20 weeks gestation)." This does not mention the role of men in pregnancy at all. I am not going to comment on Margaret Sanger and PP right now as it does not relate to the legislation you posted about. I am also a woman who has overcome obstacles and has degrees (I don't know how this is relevant here). I mainly think that the choice to have an abortion is the hardest choice a woman will ever make, but it is important that every child is a wanted child. I will never believe that doctors will engage in child sacrifice? My impression from reading your bio is that you are a scientist. It seems that in this context, science goes out the window. I have appreciated your perspective on COVID numbers in Maine. But in this case, your opinion is overshadowing facts and societal needs. I am fine with the fact that you are anti-abortion. That is your right. But no one else gets to make that decision for me or for anyone else. Thank you.
I think you are mixing my comments with another readers, but that's ok. I'm going to clear this up a bit. I'm against late-term abortion primarily because it takes the life of another human. Period. I can't think another scenario where we consider it morally right for one end the life of another human in order to have the kind of life one wants or because the circumstances are too challenging. A mother would never be permitted to end the life of her 2 month old. There would be no excuse granted - be it financial hardship, mental illness or - as you mentioned - convenience and carrier goals. A viable baby at 20+ weeks has every right to life as the 2 month old - that's my bottom line. In the same way that we should support, care for the mother of a newborn in crisis - we do the same for the new born. It is incumbent on society to do so for the unborn viable life in question. Like you and I have bodily autonomy to refuse a vaccine that must be respected at all costs, the bodily autonomy of the unborn viable child must be respected and protected. To that end - it is absolutely the right - even the responsibility - of us all to protect that life, be it inside you or any woman. Our laws should reflect that.