I support abortion more than any leftist on here. I think it should be completely unregulated. It should be legal for you to pay some shady guy in a back alley to get a coathanger and give you an abortion right then and there on top of a trash can. But I disagree with the constitutional interpretation behind Roe v Wade.
No, there is no baby involved in abortion,. No, engaging in sex is engaging in sex.....you may risk getting pregnant but there is no way you have to accept being pregnant.,.,. ANSWER if you're not too afraid : ....would YOU accept an STD and do nothing about it???
A child is a legal person and has Constitutional rights. A fetus is NOT a legal person and has no Constitutional rights. The only "rights" that pertain to the fetus are those granted to the States and/or those that the pregnant woman grants to her fetus. So your position is fallacious because it makes a false equivalence between a child and a fetus that does not exist under the Law of the Land.
I see...so you sarcastically wish women to be injured or die because you "Disagree" with a law. You must be a very pleasant individual to have a beer with(SIC).
You seem to have misunderstood me. While I support the legality of unregulated abortions, I also support fully legal abortions in abortionist clinics and hospitals, so long as they are not funded by tax dollars (as with all medical procedures). I just disagree with the constitutional interpretation of Roe v Wade. Abortion should be legal and unhindered.
the problem here is that you think that Roe v. Wade actually caused abortions to happen. That's simply not the case. Before Roe, there were just as many abortions being performed as after Roe.Just like people were getting drunk before prohibition was repealed. You see, here's the thing, Before Roe, Women were never prosecuted for having abortions and doctors were only prosecuted if they messed up and injured the woman. No one was ever charged with 'murder' for performing an abortion, not even the notorious Dr. Ruth Barnett, who performed 40,000 abortions between 1918 and 1968. http://www.oregonlive.com/O/index.ssf/2009/08/early_portland_abortion_provid.html
Since this is a 'serious' conversation about abortion, let's stipulate a few things. For the "Pro-Choice" side- Abortions required because of rape, incest or a threat to the mother's health are rare. Most abortions performed are done on healthy women in the first trimester of pregnancy, on a fetus they conceived in a consensual sex act. For the "Pro-Life" (not really) side, almost no abortions are performed at a point where the fetus looks anything like a baby, much less is viable. When they are, it is almost always because something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy that a woman initially wanted. So let's talk about it honestly- Abortion as contraception at a point where no one would otherwise even know she was pregnant. As a practical matter, it should be legal because such laws would be impossible and dangerous to enforce. But it would be awfully nice if we could have less of that sort of thing.
You're new here...you will be surprised at all the "misinformation" and "Alternative Facts" the Anti-Choicers indulge in.....one of which is that abortions started in 1974...and will end when Trump's pet justices overturn RvW...
I am curious as to what point you're trying to make here. An abortion is an abortion. What difference does it make if the pregnancy came about because of rape or consensual sex? THERE IS NO difference as I always point out to Anti-Choicers who think for some really odd reason that a raped woman has a different "abortion" than a woman who had consensual sex. What has the rarity of a situation got to do with anything? If you are the raped woman the rarity really doesn't mean much.....or do you think if only some women suffer it's OK? What DO you mean? . . You are so right there....but those who hate women and wish to destroy there rights never think ahead to how this would all work out... . Less of what sort of thing? Abortions? Why? They would lessen if more women had access to safe affordable accessible birth control but Republicans are systematically shutting down clinics where BC can be obtained. But, no woman has an obligation to use BC so abortion should and will always be available.
Roe v Wade took the power away from states, like Texas, that only allowed abortions by a Medical Doctor if the mother's life was at risk. Roe v Wade was judicial overreach. http://www.ushistory.org/us/57d.asp
No, there will be people here willing to give women their right to an abortion. Wealthy women will never have to worry. ...what's a flight to Paris for them? nothing..., or they have a close personal friend pet doctor who keeps their mouth shut... Any other women will, the less fortunate who are targeted by Anti-Choicers, will always have it harder...some women are so poor they barely have bus fare to clinics...... But you make a good point. Despite Anti-Choicers trying to make women's lives hell, abortions will always take place, they always have....which proves that Anti-Choicers only want to punish women for having sex...
Taking away women's right to their own bodies is "judicial overreach"..... why do you think women are "lesser than" other American citizens???
Which is you LYING again about what I post......I have NEVER said a fetus is not human....not less than human EVER. I HAVE stated that it is not a person and if anyone doesn't understand English enough to know the difference they really shouldn't LIE about it. I asked " Taking away women's right to their own bodies is "judicial overreach"..... why do you think women are "lesser than" other American citizens??? "" ...and you, by answering ""In the same way you think unborn humans are less than humans"" stated YOU believe women are less than human. .....
Okay, then when do you believe that unborn humans have the same rights and protection under the law that a woman has? At what point in their development?
That is the point I was trying to make, before [MENTION=64619]FoxHastings[/MENTION] twisted it all around to suit his agenda. No one WANTS to have an abortion. Least of which the women who have it done. They determine a NEED to have one. In that sense, no sane person is "pro-abortion", other than perhaps those who make their living performing them, no matter what Merriam-Webster says. So, EVERYONE, other than perhaps those who profit directly, wants to minimize the necessity for abortion.
No, as I have said many times and you overlooked obviously, fetuses do NOT have the same rights as BORN persons. The law agrees with me. They do have LIMITED protection after viability. There, I answered your question but you have NEVER answered mine: ""why do you think women are "lesser than" other American citizens??? "" I have pointed out to you many times that IF a fetus has the same rights as born persons then they have to have the same RESTRICTIONS as other persons.....they cannot use another person's body to sustain their life. YOU want them to have MORE rights than women.....meaning you think women, born persons, shouldn't have the equal rights that everyone else has.
Sorry, but your arguments are like a dog chasing its tail. Your petty legalisms and definitions do not make an unborn human any less human with a right to life. "It's all about the woman"----is what I hear over and over again. They say unborn humans should have similar rights that slaves had here under slave laws. They are just wards of their master until they can breathe on their own, or the umbilical cord is cut, etc.
Roe v Wade was nothing more than a very clear definition of the rights of individuals and the states when it come to abortion. Judicial "overreach" was Bush v Gore where they took a partisan position instead of allowing the political process to proceed unimpeded for We the People. And FTR Roe v Wade was decided by a majority of Conservative justices appointed by Republicans. The dissenting justices were appointed by JFK. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...by-a-majority-republican-nominated-court.html
When first I returned to this board, I asked you to tell us how you believe rights to be established. You refused, yet here you are still throwing the term around as if it has meaning. If you were to define it in a way that is consistent with what you wrote here, it would be completely redundant, synonymous with "privilege", undeserved and granted by a more powerful party, devoid of any moral element whatever. Humans are moral agents in that we are capable of perceiving obligations and prohibitions. Those of us with intact brains, capable of experiencing empathy(about 99% of us), recognize rights irrespective of what a state declares and what a more powerful person does to a weaker person. My definition of a right derives from the first order experience of all healthy adults; that is those not suffering from psychopathy. It does not gut the concept of a right of its moral connotation. A right, then, is a moral entitlement. By my definition, the rights of slaves were violated in the US prior to 1866 regardless of what any state had to say about it, the rights of Jews were violated regardless of what Germany had to say about it, the rights of the general population of North Korea are being violated regardless of what their government has to say about it, the rights of native Americans were violated regardless of what the Confederation or the Union had to say about it... By your definition, none of those people ever had anything to complain about as they had no rights to be violated, right and wrong(if there are any such concepts) are determined solely by power, the murderer, torturer, or rapist who gets away with it has no victims who's rights were violated as he is the more powerful party and he merely chooses not to afford them any rights. Since discussion on this board is about what ought to be, which entails engaging our moral capacity, we have no choice but to recognize a right as a moral entitlement. If that were not so, your definition of rights would be sufficient, but then we may as well all just delete our accounts and shut down the site as there would be nothing to discuss.
Ya, "petty legalisms" AKA, the LAW...which I guess you don't find too important, even "petty". How awful for you that these "petty legalisms" protect women too!!!! I NEVER said a fetus is "less human" and am getting very tired of you, in your desperation at having NO FACTS or any good argument LYING about what I posted. . WHO is "they" and WHERE did "they" say that??? Blather.. What can you not understand about :I have pointed out to you many times that IF a fetus has the same rights as born persons then they have to have the same RESTRICTIONS as other persons.....they cannot use another person's body to sustain their life. I answered your question but you have NEVER answered mine: ""why do you think women are "lesser than" other American citizens???
Republicans have appointed terrible judges. Earl Warren being about the worst example. Judicial Fiat can be controlled with Congress impeaching Federal Judges who stray from upholding the original intent and meaning of the USC.
