Some would advocate that women be charged as a means to keep a law protecting the unborn from passing.. Most states had and have compassion for the woman and compassion for the unborn child. Focusing on the abortionist deters abortions. Saves lives. That is the agenda of pro life, to uphold life.
Some will go to extremes....just like some do today...having late term abortions by debatable "doctors". However more babies will live and people will understand the importance of taking responsibility for bringing a life into the world.
No, if it's murder it's murder.....to make one's stance look less like misogyny one would have to say, "Ya, well killing a fetus is murder but women should get special rights to murder." No, Pro-"Lifes" agenda is to punish women for having consensual sex, they have no respect for poor women who have children and regularly scream and whine about Welfare which supports poor children....that is NOT "Pro-"Life".
""""""""""and people will understand the importance of taking responsibility for bringing a life into the world""""" Prove they will, prove they never have..... FORCE is what educates people? Really? They will appreciate the life of a kid they didn't want and can't afford? They will ""understand the importance of taking responsibility for bringing a life into the world " by being forced to raise a kid? You didn't watch the video , did you.
I'm a man (DNA certified). So I can't have babies. But women are not their own Gods, and cannot do whatever they want, wherever they want without consequences. I'm for allowing women to have the choice to abort their children away from here. In the ultra-rare cases where the mother will likely lose her life w/o and abortion---then maybe they could do that near here. Otherwise, murder your children elsewhere.
All four are just very bad questions. The first one is totally Orwellian, but you're just assuming it as a logical consequence of overturning Roe v Wade. The second is a procedural matter and the essence of what is done in every single contested accusation finding its way to a courtroom. Even after you know what the law is, which you wouldn't by merely overturning Roe v Wade as Hotdogr pointed out, it still doesn't make sense to ask it outside the context of a particular case. To the third; what new laws? After you answer that, are you seriously gonna ask how law is enforced? Do you know anything about how laws against murder are enforced? It would be something like that. But then, this is not a logical consequence of overturning Roe v Wade either. What does the fourth even mean? Are you asking how a judge passes a sentence? Are you asking how a legislature enacts sentencing guidelines? Are you asking what would be done with a person once convicted? This, again, is not a logical consequence of overturning Roe v Wade.
One would hope you understand the extreme rarity of "Late Term" abortion and that it is pretty much illegal already. Debatable doctors are equally rare currently, but would certainly increase. No "Babies" are ever aborted, in fact they cannot be but the term is often used for a ZEF to appeal emotionally and abortion IS a woman taking responsibility.
I see...you are a certified man who thinks his opinion should be the guiding force behind a womans choices....but only maybe sometimes kinda sorta if'n onna counta because.....BABIES.
But you want to force women to give birth to a baby. The part you avoided: You:""""""""""and people will understand the importance of taking responsibility for bringing a life into the world""""" Prove they will, prove they never have..... FORCE is what educates people? Really? They will appreciate the life of a kid they didn't want and can't afford? They will ""understand the importance of taking responsibility for bringing a life into the world " by being forced to raise a kid? OR give it up after going through all the pain, physical damage (even death) financial loss, possible job loss...to give someone else a kid? You didn't watch the video , did you.
You tell me what YOU believe, and I'll tell you what I believe. Discussions work better that way. I believe that powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution fall to the states, or the people. It should not be a federal issue. IMO, women have the right to do what they will with their body and their pregnancy, but they do not have the right to use the power of the federal government to force me to pay for it.
That falls squarely under the 'not my problem' umbrella. Women can and should be able to do what they want with regards to abortion, but they should not be able to stick a gun in my face by proxy, and force me to pay for it. The OP's entire premise is flawed. It is based on the incorrect presumption that overturning Roe v Wade would render abortion illegal when it does not.
The rights of American citizens come under the Constitution of the United States....the states do not and should not be able to take away American citizen's American rights. Good to see you're not Pro-"Life" just worried about your taxes. There is a law, the Hyde Act, that forbids taxes from being used for abortion, a LEGAL medical procedure....and that's not enough for you??? Want your taxes going towards overturning RvW? MILLIONS will be spent of YOUR money. Want bigger welfare ? Millions more of your money for poor kids and unwanted kids....
Does this count? Obama care, medicare, medicaid, the insurance companies all have your health records and so does the govt. When they pay the bills the cost is recorded along with the procedure.
No, it's not your problem so why are you against abortion? - - - Updated - - - Yup, and the Constitution rules.....American citizens are American citizens in ALL of America. Care to address the part of my post you chose to ignore? : Good to see you're not Pro-"Life" just worried about your taxes. There is a law, the Hyde Act, that forbids taxes from being used for abortion, a LEGAL medical procedure....and that's not enough for you??? Want your taxes going towards overturning RvW? MILLIONS will be spent of YOUR money. Want bigger welfare ? Millions more of your money for poor kids and unwanted kids....
There are no rights being taken away from anyone. As a libertarian, I am a proponent of small government, individual liberty, and the free market. I see this as a free market topic just like any other elective medical procedure. There are X demand for abortions, and clinics who want to perform them should absolutely be able to compete with each other to provide the service, bound by the guidelines of the states in which they operate. No federal intervention necessary... simple as that. No sane person is 'pro-abortion', other than perhaps those who make their living performing them. By that I mean everyone wants as few abortions performed as is necessary. We all want to minimize the necessity. Subsidizing them, making them free and easy, serves to increase demand, like any other commodity. What we do not need is any sort of federal prohibition, like the OP suggests. We've seen the carnage that prohibitions create.
Was this meant for me? If so no I don't want my taxes used for abortions. RvW will never be overturned, it's a no touch subject when elections come around. As far as your assertion that millions will spent on poor kids and unwanted kids I don't answer hypotheticals when there is no way to know until it happens. Who knows maybe some of these women will wise up and consider birth control, maybe use the day after pill, I'm sure Planned parenthood would pony up the pills. I would like to know why is it Democrats support aborting their base?
You""By that I mean everyone wants as few abortions performed as is necessary. We all want to minimize the necessity. Subsidizing them, making them free and easy, serves to increase demand, like any other commodity. """ No, not everyone wants to minimize the necessity especially people who are against things like minimum wage, equal pay, or less expensive education. Abortion isn't free....unless a woman is just too poor to afford one.......and it's no more "free" than the services rendered in ERs where patients can't pay. Abortion isn't easy. Do you want to limit other legal medical procedures? The number of abortions performed should equal the number of abortions women want.....
Again( and again and again and again) YOU do not pay for abortions, the Hyde Act does not allow it. This is pretty SIMPLE, more forced child birth = more kids.....can you figure that out? More kids on welfare cost more money than any abortions ever did. Women DO use Planned Parenthood for BC but Republicans want to make that as hard as possible by shutting down clinics where women can get birth control. However, women are under NO obligation to use BC.
