It will take another Savita Halappanavar who was the 26 year old dentist in Ireland who lost her life because the medical staff were too scared to save her
Actually far from it. Just because you don't believe in abortions of convenience doesn't mean that you don't think there are times when abortion is the better option. I myself am not against all abortion I just do not believe in late term abortions unless it's absolutely necessary or abortions of convenience. So please explain to me how that's hypocritical. And remember whatever twisted pretzel logic you attempt to apply here will also apply to you in the reverse
It is the medical side that concerns me Pregnancy is NOT “risk free” and when things go wrong they can go spectacularly wrong and rapidly wrong. Some examples Threatened or partial miscarriage - needs an abortion procedure but if we wait to determine that the foetus is truly dead then the woman may develop septic shock or worse (and if you think there is no worse than septic shock try working in an ICU) diagnosis of one of a myriad of cancers leaving the woman to chose between delaying treatment or ending the pregnancy Foetal abnormality Placental abruption Preeclampsia Infection To name but a few
Explain “convenience” please because I have a strong suspicion this is based on the stupid idea that women “use abortion as a contraceptive” something only a male would believe
Lots of feelings there, huh... Crime is crime. Is it not? If you don't report it, and you hide the crime, why should you get a pass later on when demanding an abortion which would be against the law? Try explaining how simply obtaining a plan B type pill is too much for those in need of it. You seem entirely willing to play excuses, but the obvious answer is to simply take the necessary action. Is that too much to ask here?
You posted : FoxHastings said: ↑ She was raped and the rapist took a picture of her drivers license and threatened to kill her if she tells anyone."" I NEVER POSTED THAT....QUIT ALTERING POSTS!
FoxHastings said: ↑ If abortion is banned because it is "murder" then ANY abortion is MURDER. The Anti-Choicers canNOT have it both ways. They want to look like they are such "caring" people by making exceptions for rape and incest but only prove that they are HYPOCRITES.. It is either murder or NOT murder. The Anti-Choicers canNOT have it both ways. THEREFORE raped women and the victims of incest MUST endure a lifetime punishment for something that wasn't their fault..... What TF!??? I didn't call to have abortion banned!! It is the Anti-Choicers who want to ban abortion that want the victims of rape to suffer for the rest of their lives...
FoxHastings said: ↑ If abortion is banned because it is "murder" then ANY abortion is MURDER. The Anti-Choicers canNOT have it both ways. They want to look like they are such "caring" people by making exceptions for rape and incest but only prove that they are HYPOCRITES.. It is either murder or NOT murder. The Anti-Choicers canNOT have it both ways. THEREFORE raped women and the victims of incest MUST endure a lifetime punishment for something that wasn't their fault..... Why couldn't you address the contents of the post of mine you quote??
ALL abortions are abortions of convenience. What TF else would they be? It is inconvenient to die. It is inconvenient to have a kid you can't afford. It is inconvenient to have a kid you don't want.
They would have to undergo a medical exam to prove their claim about the rape. The problem is that many women do not report rapes, and therefore do not get the exam (which has to be done right after the attack) and they won't know they are pregnant until weeks later when all evidence would no longer be visible.
Women need to get over that don't they? As long as they keep treating rape as some kind of "special crime" then others will see it that way as well. Women here are being basically the authors of their own stigma.
This issue is not about "abortions of convenience" or late term abortions. Nothing in the SC decision targeted either of those. Nothing in the Republican push to end abortion targets those, either. The target is abortion. Period.
They left it up to each state to decide do you not believe in states rights? Even your dear leader said at the time that roe v Wade was established that he thought the law went too far. Of course he has since flip flopped on his position for political convenience. As the winds shift, so too does he. A political chameleon
Uncle Clarence says the pill is on his list of sex related acts that will be ended. His list also includes prophylactics. Plus, there is the question of whether states allow distribution of the pill throughout the state and whether there are outlets that carry it.
Our constitution includes rights that every person in America has. So, you suggest removing rights from that list in order to allow states to deny them is an improvement. Do you agree with removing gun rights from the constitution so that individual states may decide much more democratically and with recognition of issues of local concern??? Your attempt to stretch the issue to fan your hate for the US president is noted, but NOT respected as it is just plain trite.
I'm reminded (don't ask me why) of scene in "Patriot Games" where a married Irish terrorist leader picks up a woman in a bar and takes her home not realizing she is an assassin sent by a rival terrorist cell. They are back at his place rolling around in bed, she says she needs to get something and goes to get her purse. The man (apparently thinking its a condom) says "Oh you're not going to make me wear one of those things are you? You know the church says that's a sin!" She pulls out a pistol, says "So is this". And shoots him in the face.
Gun rights are specifically laid out in the constitution in detail. The word abortion does not appear even one time in the entire Constitution. And there are already states that do not respect gun rights. You can have a concealed carry permit legally in one state and as soon as you cross another state border you become a criminal. So don't feed me that because it's already happening
The second amendment is the only constitutional statement on guns, and it gives no such detail. It states that the reason for owning guns is for a well regulated militia for security. Today, security is provided by police, NOT a well regulated militia. And, we have no such well regulated militia.