Statistics should suffice but if you DO want a real life case of a young healthy woman who died when she should not have, who died because the country she was then living in had a law similar to the Texas law then you need look no further than the story of Savita Halappanavar https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/19/savita-halappanavar-abortion-midwife Her case led to the overturning of the antiabortion legislation in Ireland Now you mentioned HIPPA - are YOU going to be the arbiter of weather or not a woman feels sufficiently impacted by the pregnancy? Read the Qld Case with r v Bayliss and Cullen https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...-protects-abortion-doctors-20090901-f5qf.html We have since legalised abortion
It has taken me a little while to chase this down https://www.guttmacher.org/perspect...an-guttmacher-came-see-abortion-matter-rights
Still : WHY TF would you need to look at every case ???? It may be but abortion isn't the overly melodramatic "killing babies" crap that Anti-Choicers have to use in place of facts... And why would all poor people "kill their babies " (LOL) if they don't want to???? That was a weird question you asked... Oh, and women do NOT need an excuse for having an abortion...
You do realize congress can pass laws on these subjects, right? When the fascists get their wishes to ban others rights (abortion has 59% support and same sex marriage has 70% support — both percentages are even higher in educated and younger voters) and the non-psycho majority of the nation see women dying or being arrested from self abortions and their friends and neighbors having their relationships dissolved you might not like what happens regardless of your partisan stacked SCOTUS. I have to give it to you guys though, destroying yet another government institution in your desire to control others. Y’all are nothing but consistent
Yes , the pregnant woman owns the fetus which is part of her body...for sure the government doesn't own it...
Yup, also busy bodies who think they should control what women do with their own bodies.....the ones who keep petitioning the Big Government to get bigger and ban abortion..
Yeah, you're right. After all, we're just savage animals same as apes - the only difference, according to the disgusting death cult that is liberal/regressivism, is that we can talk... Tell me - at what point does ripping a fetus to shreds and flushing it down the toilet like just another turd of digestive waste, become disgusting to you?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yup, also busy bodies who think they should control what women do with their own bodies.....the ones who keep petitioning the Big Government to get bigger and ban abortion.. If , and when, that happens I would find it disgusting....good thing that does NOT happen in abortions. Now, care to address the actual post of mine you quoted? """"Yup, also busy bodies who think they should control what women do with their own bodies.....the ones who keep petitioning the Big Government to get bigger and ban abortion..""""
It can and very often does. But, that is really besides the point since the woman is in charge of her life and her body regardless of how severe the threat to her life is. It would be immoral if the woman chose it out of pure inconvenience. If she deems motherhood inconvenient it is foolish and even immoral for her to enter it. The moral thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy. I do not understand why this bothers you so much? Do you have anty kind of problem with any of those reasons? Why? Such abortions are usually done when the woman wants the baby and much later in the pregnancy. So, you are against late term abortions even when the woman's life is in danger? Or what is it you are trying to say?
aCultureWarrior said: ↑ Ah yes, the old "If I don't snuff that clump of cells from my womb I'm gonnna dieeeeeeee!" lie.. Hence the reason I call your kind "sexual anarchists", as you believe that you're in charge of your body and can have sex with anyone ( someone of the same sex, a close relative, a child) or anything (an animal) and in the case of a woman, if that sex results in a pregancy, can snuff out that life in the name of "choice". aCultureWarrior said: Even Alan Guttmacher (the former head of Planned Parenhood, the nations largest abortion mill) admits that the vast majority of abortions are done out of pure convienence. Now that we've established that abortion isn't medically necessary: You are aware that your atheist/secular humanist morality is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide in the last 100 years alone aren't you? (This where Ritter responds "But but but, the Crusades, the Salem Witch trials and....!" I'm working on accepting selfishness and the murder of one's own flesh and blood, give me time, maybe I'll come around and not be bothered by it. LOL..I can always tell the ones that aren't around women, <wink>, as they don't even know about C Sections. Life starts at conception, there's a huge difference between preventing a pregancy and terminating one.
What? From what hole did you extract that acusation? What the heck are you talking about, bro? Oh. You are one of those who think "selfish" is a naughty word... How shocking. Selfishness is a virtue and your Christian/altruist morality is the reason for all things awful. Now that is just biological ignorance.
Whomever told you that Life started at conception was lying -- animate does not come from inanimate - both sperm and egg are alive - surely you realize this ? There is also big difference between a zygote and a human - strange that the anti aborts can not figure out the difference between a single human cell, and "A Human" .
Agreed. In most states it'll be limited to wherever they determine viability in a few it might band totally and in a few it might be all the way up until birth. I'm not sure, but you are correct the states will make up their own mind.
Please tell me why a woman is morally obligated to sacrfice her own life and pursuit of happiness for a piece of protoplasm and at least 18 years of raising a child she does not even want? "MuH, sHe cAn aLwAtyS gIvE iT uP fOr AdOpTiOn." Tell me why any woman has a duty to provide strangers with children and tell me why she has a duty to go through 9 months of physical and mental torture that being forced to carriy out an unwanted pregnancy means. Tell me why you want more children to grow up in the unsafe and incompetent foster care system. Now hang on a minute. Why do you equate consensual sex to pedophilia and beastiality and what are your issues with homosexuality exactly? There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about adults having consensual sex. Sex is good. Why do you want to deny women that pleasure? It would be a problem if they were done out of inconvience. Parenthood is very hard and an immense responsibility. If a woman has other values it is both irrational and immoral of her to become a mother. Of course her convience comes first, what else should it be? Where did we establish that? Abortion id actually sometimes medically necessary, but those type of abortions are not in the centre of the abortion debate. Hey, altar boy! Please stay on topic. You so funny. How do you prevent that which already happened?
Rambling nonsense mate. Who told you life starts at conception ? - is the egg/sperm not alive ? Then you go on to talk about sex with animals and children ?? - what does this have to do with whether or not the zygote is a person ? You make fun of death then in the same breath want us to cry about some clump of cells. Is there a point somewhere in all this random illogical disconected diatribe ?
