Shooter realized pretty quickly when Roe was decided that the arguments for and against abortion come down to when one believes life begins. If one believes life begins at or shortly after conception, then one must necessarily oppose abortion. That is, unless one is prepared to support infanticide. If one believes that life does not begin until a fetus can survive outside the womb, then abortion is really just cleaning out a random bunch of cells. And none of this respects the victims of the issue, the mother and her unborn child. I rarely see anyone in the heat of argument even acknowledging the horrific decision a mother must make. Whether she believes life is growing inside her, or there's just this inconvenient thing that needs to be addressed, she and she alone has to decide; have the baby and keep it, have the baby and adopt it, or abort it. And no matter what her decision, she will carry guilt. There isn't a truly right answer, is there? Even when she learns late in her pregnancy that the baby inside her has issues and may or will not survive, regardless of her decision, she carries guilt for the rest of her life. Both of Shooter's kids are adopted. The birth mom was a useless, addicted, user and murderer who abused all who came into contact with her. But, she didn't abort her kids. She killed one of them, but we adopted the other two, and I thank God that the birth mother didn't take the other action. And I know, both of my kids are glad she didn't choose abortion. I am conflicted about abortion because I don't know when life begins. Certainly before the baby can survive outside the mother. Also certainly, not as early as conception. I do know that if that baby is alive, the mother's wants/needs have to take a back seat to the right of that baby to live. As they say, your rights end where mine begin. And add into all this the issue of a sick fetus, and the problem of how life impacting that is for the baby. Because the mother, in the end, has to decide how to proceed. And carry the guilt no matter what decision she makes. So as all y'all rant and stamp your feet about Federal VS states rights, and how cruel it is to deny/allow abortion, try to remember, the mother and her unborn child are the real victims here, not your injured feelings.
Ok here are some reasons 1. It is financially in your interest to assist her So, since the majority of women seeking abortion are at or below the poverty line that means that toward the end of the pregnancy they will require some financial (usually government) assistance. Since it is difficult to get women to adopt out a child that then means two who need financial support 2. Abortion is health care long before Dobbs states were restricting access to abortion 3. Reduction in infant mortality It is known from studies throughout the world that an ability to control birth spacing decreases infant mortality https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ns-higher-maternal-infant-mortality-rcna61585
And I take exception to you minimizing the life that mother carries. At some point in that pregnancy that collection of cells becomes a life, and yet you seem to give not a rats ass about it. I do not minimize the hardship a mother faces when pregnant. Her choice is hers alone to make, and no matter what she chooses, there is no clear right choice. Only compromise. But your assumption that a mother will find it impossible or very difficult to travel for an abortion puts pregnant women in a category they do not belong in, just so it fits your agenda and your debate points. Surely, some women would have no issue with the trouble and expense of travel, others would find it overwhelming. But as with all issues we all face in life, we find a way. That's what life is you know.
The real answer lies in preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Something you will almost NEVER hear from the so called “pro-life” group. The number of people on this board whom I have had to educate on the difference between “perfect” use of contraception and “typical” use simply astounds me. Time and time again I have had members state “condoms are cheap” but when you point out that with “typical” use 15 out of every 100 women relying on condoms will get pregnant they sputter into silence. So fund LARCs Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives to be affordable and easily procured. But that is only part of the answer - the other lies in supporting the woman/child. So paid maternity leave, child support payments etc etc etc
The problem with figures is, they never lie. But liars figure. I frankly give not a flea fart about the need to provide support to a poverty level mother who has one or more kids to support. If you've read my posts in this thread you know that my kids are adopted, and thank you, state for supporting that bitch until they could save two of her three babies. The cost of supporting people who either make dumb decisions with their lives, or are victims of life, is well worth the lives it can save.
Once again, we want the state to take over because us minions are too damn dumb to take care of our business. If women don't want to become pregnant then they have to deal with contraception. If men don't want to be daddies, then they damn well better cap the well. Yes, despite our best intentions, **** happens. But deciding to get the state to take care of this for us is Orwellian, don't you think?
Or we don't find a way, or just as likely, we find an unsafe and dangerous way... but that is not your concern. In point of fact an abortion clinic in Sydney Australia is 'just one travel day away from a pregnant woman living in the continental 48 states too. Its either 14 hours in direct flight, or 24 hours in direct flight depending on which coastal city you buy your ticket from. I am not sure you can find an abortion clinic anywhere on this planet that someone with sufficient resources and time, cannot reach in 'a travel day'. Its 'those resources' that is the nub, isn't it?
Carrying the example to the extreme only demonstrates that your arguments are faulty. As states work through their laws on abortion and try to find common ground we'll have to watch and see if women are more harmed by the changes than the fetus's they carry.
This is NOT just about "when life begins", though that is obviously a very personal decision to be made by the woman who is pregnant. The health requirements of a woman can directly conflict with pregnancy. We've seen the examples of women being denied abortion when the fetus is dying, is dead, or will not live after birth. This is a SERIOUS issue for the woman - both in terms of her life and in terms of the psychological impact of being required to continue carrying such a fetus. There are also the cases where medical treatment would cause harm to the fetus. Who decides when chemotherapy has to start in order to give the woman a chance of survival? And, chemotherapy is NOT the only such issue. Who decides if the age and maturity of a girl makes a full term pregnancy too great a risk. Who decides if a woman is raped or if there was incest? These are all cases where medical judgement is required, and where that judgement is becoming easier to challenge in court by prosecutors. OB/GYNs are LOSING OUT in their attempts to treat pregnant women. The result is a decrease in the availability of such doctors where they must trade off medical aid and prosecution risk. These restrictive laws ARE an assault on women's health care.
You are the one who used the 'one day's travel' in a pathetic attempt to minimize and trivialize what happens to pregnant women when state after state after state are banning access to clinics. It begs for examples of how wealth determines what reality really looks like in these women's lives, when politicians impede ingress to needed medical services.
That is TOTAL nonsense. It's the WOMAN'S body. She has EVERY right to full bodily autonomy. She gets to determine her healthcare in consultation with a doctor who is concerned about HER, not about some prosecutor. The very idea that you can write multiple years of medical training into a LAW is just plain stupid. The problem with these laws is that they are written AGAINST the will of the woman, denying the fundamental right to personal bodily autonomy, while threatening doctors who dare to show up to help.
But all of these issues have existed before Roe and before dobbs. What has changed is that about half of the states are restricting/prohibiting abortions. Yes, a woman may now have to travel to another state now, but that is hardly critical. And while you are lamenting the health of women faced with these horrific decisions try to remember that there is another life involved.
Oh, please. All of that has been addressed above. Short form: - many can not risk the travel or don't have the money for that. - prosecutors are prosecuting those who got legal abortions in other states, making travel totally irrelevant. How long before you make the same false claims again?
Well, first ask any attorney about the legality of someone prosecuted for doing what is legal in another state. Second, the number of women who can't afford to travel for an abortion would be incredibly small. Still an issue,but not the issue you would make of it. Not false claims, ask an attorney.
No, these are both serious issues today. Right wing states are gearing up to prevent women from going out of state for abortions. Texas allows friends and neighbors to sue someone simply for helping a woman go out of state for an abortion. A ride to the airport is enough to get you sued. And, no. The cost of an out of state trip and the various ancillary costs is SERIOUS for someone working at minimum wage. Consider a single mother of children that must travel for an abortion. Picking optimal circumstances is just not rational.
Picking extreme examples isn't rational. Tell me the legal justificarion for someone in Texas to sue a taxi driver for taking someone to the airport.
There are previous precedents for that sort of thing. But I think we are getting off-topic. That is a separate discussion for another thread.
Maine's previous law (before this new law was passed) allowed abortions at any time if the woman's life was at risk. Would you, FreshAir, argue that a law that says late-term abortion can be done if the woman's life is at risk, is not good enough? That you still think that places doctors at risk if they perform an abortion? So you just want to give carte blanche approval to abort anytime they want, no matter that it's late-term? Tell us, do you think there are adequate legal protections in place to protect those fetuses? (I really should use the term babies because this is late-term we're talking about)
but the courts could decide different from the doctors, thus the risk, and why the doctors felt the legal risk was too great... this solves that if you did not have the religious nuts on the right, what you said would be true, but that is not the world we live in
With that type of mentality, there is no way to stop people from aborting late-term healthy babies when there are practically no health issues. In other words, this reasoning works just as much the other way too. Perhaps there should be some sort of approval board that the doctor can take the case to, if he is concerned it could fall into a questionable grey zone, like a state government-approved bioethics council. Probably for the great majority of cases it will be pretty clear, and the bioethics council won't need to get involved.
not happening, so we address the real issues, not the fake ones the problem with a board as you describe is an anti-abortion nut would try to get the job, and they would deny all abortions, would not work - this is between the patient and the doctor
