Banning abortion without prosecuting the woman would be next to impossible. There are too many natural alternatives to cause a miscarriage. As long as they are not forced to carry the unwanted fetus to term then no, I would not say they would be slaves to the state in the same context. https://www.npr.org/sections/health...s-can-have-long-term-effects-on-a-moms-health Both are issues. Just the issues faced by pregnant women in their career can be devastating. No, the actual cost of having the child, the cost of complications. Cost of long term issues related to pregnancy. That doesn’t even include the lifetime costs of the child itself. Because both are the government stepping in and saying they know better than what the patient and their doctors know.
What if it can be proven the woman KNEW about the pregnancy (or definitely should have known), but she chose not to abort at that time, and then got an abortion much later? Would that still make women "slaves"?
So you're okay with the doctor stepping in and saying he knows more than the woman? How do we stop a woman from going out there and finding that 1 unscrupulous doctor out of a hundred who will agree with whatever she wants, for a little extra money? If it can be proven the woman went to a doctor and the doctor said no, "It isn't right and you don't need it", and then she ended up getting it done anyway with some shady character, should she be prosecuted? Or is this "doctor" business all just an empty pro-choice talking point?
Ok, what if the government pays for a free midwife, and additional hospital services if she needs it? The woman herself doesn't have to pay for that if there's adoption. We've discussed the adoption issue in more detail in other threads.
Probably goes a long way to explaining why middle class women are a bit more likely to abort when they have a pregnancy than poor women.
Does her knowledge decrease the damage to her body, her finances, and the remainder of her life? The number of late term abortions that do not have a medical reason are very very small because women that do not want a child elect for abortion as soon as possible.
There are other reasons the unborn don't get those things. We've discussed this before in other threads. That doesn't necessarily mean they're not persons. Pregnant women do (or can) get extra special assistance. Some specialty insurance companies would actually be willing to issue a life insurance policy on a fetus, but it's unusual for any child to have a life insurance policy on them. I'm not exactly sure how medical coverage for fetal surgeries work. The fetus is not counted as a dependent because the woman doesn't have to go that out of her way to care for her fetus. Most of that is automatic, handled by her body.
Notice the word and in my post. All care is up to the patient, the doctor is to make sure it is done correctly. Your fantasy about prosecuting women who don’t want a child for the remainder of their lives is just disturbing.
I have said that if the embryo could be removed from the woman at no cost to her then I could understand the arguments you are making but as long as there is any cost to the woman (physically, mentally, financially) it is too much to demand she do anything of the sort.
It means that a woman is telling someone else not to do something to her, but ironically she did the same thing to her unborn child. It was just like with slavery. Slave owners told Anti-slavers to "leave them alone", but ironically the reason they weren't leaving them alone was because slave owners weren't leaving someone else alone. The woman is a total hypocrite if she thinks she has the right to be left alone in this situation.
Except in this instance women are the slaves and the state is the slave owner while the fetus is the lifetime crop they are expected to care for.
Any costs, even no matter how small? It's completely unreasonable to put any costs on her, or inconvenience her in any way? Can you at least admit, theoretically, that if pregnancy was much less of a burden, it would be okay to make her deal with it, in some situations? Or are you not even willing to concede that?
Hmm, sounds more like indentured servitude, since it's only temporary. And the woman did do something to bring that situation about... (not all women are turned into "slaves", under this system)
YES! If it interferes with her rights!!! Why? Why do you have this great weird NEED to make women do things they don't want to do...?
Then why do you have so much of a problem with verifying it? According to your logic, 99% of these women are going to get the automatic stamp of approval anyway, so what's the problem? Why can't we at least keep records, so we can keep track of exactly how many late-term abortions are being performed and for what reasons? Is it because you're afraid the percentage of women who get later-term abortions for dubious reasons may actually be much higher, and you support them?
No, she didn't...she is a PERSON with rights, a fetus has no rights. The ONLY time abortion relates to slavery is when Anti-Choicers want to enslave pregnant women by forcing them to gestate....
My view on abortion is I don't want to ever see one. Neither do I want people to ask me what I think of them. Keep it to yourself we're trying to survive here on planet earth until global warming kills us all. The human race is to the earth as fleas are to wild dogs.
Why don't you talk to women who have post-abortion regrets? Or those that can never have a baby again, due to their past abortion(s).
cd8ed said: ↑ Can you take out life insurance on a fetus? Can fetus’s get federal assistance? Can pregnant women claim a dependent? The correct answer to the questions is No, No, No. Because the fetus is not a person.
And you're not able to see how you're like the slavers? They had white supremacy; you seem to have born supremacy.
