Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh I'm well aware of what I'm dealing with having had the "pleasure" previously when discussing the Pope's stance on condoms in Africa.
So Belinda, in how many States of the US is abortion illegal?
There seems to have been a lot of challenges to the legality of Roe Vs Wade in recent years and I'm just wondering if any states have changed their laws?
No state has banned abortion except for South Dakota. But South Dakota cannot enforce its ban unless/until Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Many other states, however, have added significant requirements on abortion. For example, in my state, a woman must view an ultrasound, there is a mandatory waiting period (I *think* it's 48 hours, but it could be either 24 or 72), and parental consent is required for a girl under 18 to have an abortion.
No state has banned abortion except for South Dakota. But South Dakota cannot enforce its ban unless/until Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Many other states, however, have added significant requirements on abortion. For example, in my state, a woman must view an ultrasound, there is a mandatory waiting period (I *think* it's 48 hours, but it could be either 24 or 72), and parental consent is required for a girl under 18 to have an abortion.
And Roe Vs Wade is being challenged on constitutional grounds isn't it?
Which states have implimented the above requirements afo?
It sounds like there is some disagreement about the rights of the embryo vs the rights of the mother depending on which state the mother resides in? Not where the embryo was conceived?
I've been asked to repeat this several times. Here it is. This simple definition should effectively end the abortion debate for all time. But it won't, because the pro-abortion side isn't interested in facts or logic.
Here it is. Short. Simple. Ironclad.
A human embryo from the moment of conception is exactly the same genetically as the adult human being it will become (barring premature death) except in stage of development. There is no other difference. Period.
This definition has ended many abortion arguments. Nobody has ever been able to dispute or find an exception that invalidates any part of it.
Firstly let me say that I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Its not something I would do even if I was raped I could not bring myself to abort but I think it should be an option for the first trimester only. If you as a woman are so stupid and LOOSE sexually that you sleep around to the point where you are pregnant and have no idea for THREE MONTHS, you shouldn't be able to have an abortion just to hide your stupidity.
I remember when I saw my daughter on sonogram when she was the size of a peanut. She had a heart, it was beating, she was moving, that was life to me. NO, she couldn't survive on her own outside my womb but that shouldn't be the criteria.
And Roe Vs Wade is being challenged on constitutional grounds isn't it?
Which states have implimented the above requirements afo?
It sounds like there is some disagreement about the rights of the embryo vs the rights of the mother depending on which state the mother resides in? Not where the embryo was conceived?
I don't have a list of the states that have implemented the requirements. I know that Texas is one...there are likely about 25 that have similar requirements and 25 that don't.
The requirements have nothing to do with mother's rights vs. fetus/embryo's rights. They're simply about "informed consent." In the case of restrictions affecting minors, they are simply giving parents the same rights they have when the minor child has any other medical procedure.
I'm not sure if Roe v. Wade is being challenged right now. I don't *think* so, but it very well could be.
*If* Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion was banned in some states, but not others, it would not have anything to do with the state where the mother resides or where the embryo/fetus was conceived. It would be based on where the abortion took place. A state has the power to criminalize acts within its boundaries...based on where the criminal act takes place. Simply because you reside in one state doesn't make you "property" of that state and forced to submit to its laws when you go elsewhere. Gambling is illegal here, for example, but I can go to Vegas and gamble all I want without fear of prosecution.
I read your article. And not ONCE does it mention Bin Laden or even Iraq as a threat. The article is generalizing about the possibility of biological warfare. But it NEVER says anything about Bin Laden or Iraq.
By the way, are you aware that our war with Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden? We went to Iraq for other (questionable) reasons.
That's not what you asked for. You asked for proof showing experts predicted further attacks. If you want links where Bin Laden promised to attack, plenty are out there. Go find them yourself this time. Eeeee's charity work for liberals is done for the night.
Firstly let me say that I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Its not something I would do even if I was raped I could not bring myself to abort but I think it should be an option for the first trimester only. If you as a woman are so stupid and LOOSE sexually that you sleep around to the point where you are pregnant and have no idea for THREE MONTHS, you shouldn't be able to have an abortion just to hide your stupidity.
I remember when I saw my daughter on sonogram when she was the size of a peanut. She had a heart, it was beating, she was moving, that was life to me. NO, she couldn't survive on her own outside my womb but that shouldn't be the criteria.
So women who require late term abortions due to illness or deformity or death of the fetus AFTER the first trimester are stupid and loose sexually and therefore should have to carry a baby to term?
Demonizing every woman for their sexual morality and intelligence simply because they require a late term abortion is more than just a little bit sad and incredibly short sighted and judgmental.
I'm happy for you that you had a healthy child. I see no reason to heap more vitriol on a woman who has to make an excrutiating choice should their pregnancy be revealed to involve serious birth defects.
Firstly let me say that I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Its not something I would do even if I was raped I could not bring myself to abort but I think it should be an option for the first trimester only. If you as a woman are so stupid and LOOSE sexually that you sleep around to the point where you are pregnant and have no idea for THREE MONTHS, you shouldn't be able to have an abortion just to hide your stupidity.
I remember when I saw my daughter on sonogram when she was the size of a peanut. She had a heart, it was beating, she was moving, that was life to me. NO, she couldn't survive on her own outside my womb but that shouldn't be the criteria.
Pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. You wouldn't call yourself pro-choice on rape, would you? You wouldn't say "Rape is not for me, but it's OK if somebody else wants to commit it" would you? If it's no good for you, it's no good for anybody else.
That's not what you asked for. You asked for proof showing experts predicted further attacks. If you want links where Bin Laden promised to attack, plenty are out there. Go find them yourself this time. Eeeee's charity work for liberals is done for the night.
No, I asked you to show me proof of "experts" saying that Bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. because he had the capability to kill millions of Americans. THAT is what you have been arguing with me throughout this entire thread. You have been insisting that our war with Iraq (which has nothing to do with Bin Laden, but the way) is justified because it kept Bin Laden from carrying out his supposed attack.
Some of your ramblings just don't make sense. You make these bold statements, and then when you can't back them up, you dance around them.
I don't have a list of the states that have implemented the requirements. I know that Texas is one...there are likely about 25 that have similar requirements and 25 that don't.
Are the manditory ultrasounds actually being carried out in those states? These requirements have only recently been added to the law haven't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The requirements have nothing to do with mother's rights vs. fetus/embryo's rights. They're simply about "informed consent." In the case of restrictions affecting minors, they are simply giving parents the same rights they have when the minor child has any other medical procedure.
Yeah, I seem to recall it's only the last few years that these new rules regarding "informed consent" have been brought into effect. I'm wondering what laws exist to force an individual to undergo medical testing in other circumstances?
The parental rights thing isn't really simple in my opinion, in principle I agree that parental consent is valid with regard to medical procedures but I'm not sure that I agree that parents should be allowed the right to decide if their children should become parents or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I'm not sure if Roe v. Wade is being challenged right now. I don't *think* so, but it very well could be.
It's Sunday and I've not had a lot of sleep, so my brain is a little fuzzy but I seem to recall reading some discussion about it in the last 12 months.
Vaguely recall a right wing religious group challenging the law on the grounds it is unconstitutional? Could have that all mixed up though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
*If* Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion was banned in some states, but not others, it would not have anything to do with the state where the mother resides or where the embryo/fetus was conceived. It would be based on where the abortion took place. A state has the power to criminalize acts within its boundaries...based on where the criminal act takes place. Simply because you reside in one state doesn't make you "property" of that state and forced to submit to its laws when you go elsewhere. Gambling is illegal here, for example, but I can go to Vegas and gamble all I want without fear of prosecution.
Agreed however you can only go to Vegas to gamble without fear of prosecution if you can afford to do so. You can probably even purchase tickets on tours that will take you to Vegas and I'm quite sure that whilst there will probably be a lobby group attempting to stop the Vegas tours it wouldn't be nearly as vocal or as organized as a lobby group that would attempt to stop women from availing themselves of opportunities to travel interstate to procure an abortion. Now if you don't get to go to Vegas, well that's not great and you miss out on a big weekend and maybe some winnings but ultimately it's not going to have life long ramifications for you NOR is time a factor. If you miss out this week you might manage to get through next week and not really be hampered too much. If a pregnant woman missed out on travel opportunities and services that would get her to another state in order to procure an abortion even supposing she had the funding to do so or could get the funding to do so, the vexatious efforts of the lobby group attempting to stop her would have far greater ramifications for her life and health wouldn't you say?
No, I asked you to show me proof of "experts" saying that Bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. because he had the capability to kill millions of Americans. THAT is what you have been arguing with me throughout this entire thread. You have been insisting that our war with Iraq (which has nothing to do with Bin Laden, but the way) is justified because it kept Bin Laden from carrying out his supposed attack.
Some of your ramblings just don't make sense. You make these bold statements, and then when you can't back them up, you dance around them.
Do you still not know how to use Google, dear? Plenty of stories out there about Obama's threats on Americans. Go find them for yourself. K?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
previously when discussing the Pope's stance on condoms in Africa. 
Are the manditory ultrasounds actually being carried out in those states? These requirements have only recently been added to the law haven't they? 
