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.
Sweet! Another deflective post that can't even come close to the logic that i've put forth on this thread! How surprising!
What logic have you put forth?
Here's logic: Every anti-abortion position presumes one or more of three things.
1. Women seeking abortions are stupid. The argument being that they were so stupid they unintentionally got pregnant, and they are too stupid to understand what an abortion is. They don't understand that the fetus is a human being. They don't understand how this will devastate their life in the future. They are just too stupid to be able to make this decision, so others need to make the decision for them--not to have an abortion. They are stupid so it's okay to control them.
2. Women seeking abortions are immoral. The argument being that they were immorally promiscuous and so got pregnant unintentionally, and they are so immoral that they cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. They are bad people, so it's okay to punish them and control them.
3. Women seeking abortions are irresponsible. The argument being that women who are irresponsible failed to take the proper precautions to prevent their pregnancies, and are being irresponsible in seeking to end those pregnancies. Irresponsible people deserve to be taught a lesson, and making her go through with the pregnancy would teach her to behave more responsibly in the future. They are irresponsible, to we should punish them and control them.
EVERY anti-abortion argument assumes one or more of these three scenarios. EVERY one of them.
And here's the logical rebuttal.
1. Women are not stupid. Women have a responsibility to themselves to make the decisions that are right for them. A women choosing to have an abortion may be making a decision that you don't agree with. THAT doesn't make her stupid. Judging her for that decision makes YOU stupid. Because you don't really know or understand the situation she finds herself in, and why she makes that decision.
2. Women are not immoral. Women are human beings. The overwhelming majority of us have sex. The idea that men should be free to have sex, but women should not is a sexist idea, not a moral idea. The idea that everyone should abstain from sex unless they want to have a child is an impractical idea, but because if we have learned anything about human behavior, we should know that in every society, no matter how prim and proper, people will have sex just to have sex. Illicit sex, adultery, kinky sex, down-and-dirty sex, sex is an integral part of human behavior. Women who do not share your religious beliefs about anything, including fetuses, are not immoral. They have different beliefs than you. Your failure to respect those beliefs, to respect people who have different views and opinions, is YOUR failure, not theirs.
3. Women are not irresponsible. The majority of women seeking abortions already have at least one child. To take into consideration the family you already have, and the impact another child would have on that family, is not irresponsible. It is exactly the opposite, it is the caring and responsible thing to do. It is the thoughtful thing to do.
No birth control method is foolproof. Even tubal ligations and vasectomies fail. Pregnancy is not risk-free. It is an experience that is loaded with health implications for the woman. Pregnancy is not cost-free. Having a baby is an expensive thing to do in our society. Raising that baby is an expensive proposition in our society. Women are already disadvantaged economically in our society, and part of the reason is because they are the ones having babies and who do the bulk of the child-rearing.
No one WANTS to have an abortion. People don't aspire to it. They choose it because they see it as the lesser of two evils.
I would respect people who say they are pro-children if they actually focused their energies on things that cause women to choose abortion. Focus on lowering the costs of pregnancy and childbirth, rather than focus on making it more expensive to have an abortion. Focus on making daycare costs more affordable. Focus on making diapers and formula and carseats and doctor's visits more affordable. Focus on getting the unwanted children who currently are in foster care or institutions into loving homes.
It's easy to judge. It's easy to blame. It's a lot harder to find solutions that would make women choose to go forward with unwanted pregnancies.
Yes - that young girl who was raped by her father should have exercised more Personal Responsibility, shouldn't she?
Or the college girl who was unknowingly given a date rape drug & became pregnant should have exercised more Personal Responsibility?
This insane law served one purpose only - to punish a woman who wanted an abortion. They were precluded from outlawing abortion in its entirety, so instead they passed a law that only added to an already stressful situation.
Maybe some people do in fact use abortion as a means of birth control. That is unacceptable. But for everyone else, an abortion is extremely stressful - none of those people take it lightly. This merely adds to that stress. Why? To PUNISH THEM.
There's always one who throws in the rape/incest argument, as if the majority (or even a large share) of abortions were a response to this circumstance.
Since when is physician-patient relationship out of the reach of state or federal law?
It isn't, but any such laws still have to comport with the Bill of Rights and other constitutional requirements.
This one doesn't. Nice try.
Quote:
Obamacare is one massive intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, but I don't see you espousing any particular concern in that arena.
First of all, it's not one massive intrusion. It certainly doesn't mandate unnecessary medical procedures for purely ideological reasons. It has its constitutional problems, but they don't relate to this issue.
You should probably refrain from assuming what my opinions on portions of Obamacare are anyway. You really have no idea.
Quote:
Until you buck up and protest all forms of government intrusion into healthcare, your concern falls on deaf ears.
Bull****. Some intrusions can meet constitutional muster. Some can't. This one can't.
Once again, the rigid-thinking so prevalent among political extremists reduces what is a complex legal situation into a silly and wholly incorrect binary choice. Different intrusions are subject to DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS.
Laws that punish doctors for violating the standard of care have a public safety element that justifies a bit of intrusion. Laws that prevent physicians that own clinics from having too close a business relationship with a pharmacy or diagnostic center have a consumer protection element that likewise justifies some regulation.
This law has nothing of the sort. It is not a safety issue, it is pure intrusion into the private medical decisions between a doctor and patient. There is NO compelling state interest here. None.
The point of the "analogy" was to show you that government is making its way into your life decisions, whether you like it or not. So why aren't you protesting these intrusions with equal thrust?
For the same reason that apples are not often mistaken for oranges.
Here's logic: Every anti-abortion position presumes one or more of three things.
1. Women seeking abortions are stupid. The argument being that they were so stupid they unintentionally got pregnant, and they are too stupid to understand what an abortion is. They don't understand that the fetus is a human being. They don't understand how this will devastate their life in the future. They are just too stupid to be able to make this decision, so others need to make the decision for them--not to have an abortion. They are stupid so it's okay to control them.
2. Women seeking abortions are immoral. The argument being that they were immorally promiscuous and so got pregnant unintentionally, and they are so immoral that they cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. They are bad people, so it's okay to punish them and control them.
3. Women seeking abortions are irresponsible. The argument being that women who are irresponsible failed to take the proper precautions to prevent their pregnancies, and are being irresponsible in seeking to end those pregnancies. Irresponsible people deserve to be taught a lesson, and making her go through with the pregnancy would teach her to behave more responsibly in the future. They are irresponsible, to we should punish them and control them.
EVERY anti-abortion argument assumes one or more of these three scenarios. EVERY one of them.
And here's the logical rebuttal.
1. Women are not stupid. Women have a responsibility to themselves to make the decisions that are right for them. A women choosing to have an abortion may be making a decision that you don't agree with. THAT doesn't make her stupid. Judging her for that decision makes YOU stupid. Because you don't really know or understand the situation she finds herself in, and why she makes that decision.
2. Women are not immoral. Women are human beings. The overwhelming majority of us have sex. The idea that men should be free to have sex, but women should not is a sexist idea, not a moral idea. The idea that everyone should abstain from sex unless they want to have a child is an impractical idea, but because if we have learned anything about human behavior, we should know that in every society, no matter how prim and proper, people will have sex just to have sex. Illicit sex, adultery, kinky sex, down-and-dirty sex, sex is an integral part of human behavior. Women who do not share your religious beliefs about anything, including fetuses, are not immoral. They have different beliefs than you. Your failure to respect those beliefs, to respect people who have different views and opinions, is YOUR failure, not theirs.
3. Women are not irresponsible. The majority of women seeking abortions already have at least one child. To take into consideration the family you already have, and the impact another child would have on that family, is not irresponsible. It is exactly the opposite, it is the caring and responsible thing to do. It is the thoughtful thing to do.
No birth control method is foolproof. Even tubal ligations and vasectomies fail. Pregnancy is not risk-free. It is an experience that is loaded with health implications for the woman. Pregnancy is not cost-free. Having a baby is an expensive thing to do in our society. Raising that baby is an expensive proposition in our society. Women are already disadvantaged economically in our society, and part of the reason is because they are the ones having babies and who do the bulk of the child-rearing.
No one WANTS to have an abortion. People don't aspire to it. They choose it because they see it as the lesser of two evils.
I would respect people who say they are pro-children if they actually focused their energies on things that cause women to choose abortion. Focus on lowering the costs of pregnancy and childbirth, rather than focus on making it more expensive to have an abortion. Focus on making daycare costs more affordable. Focus on making diapers and formula and carseats and doctor's visits more affordable. Focus on getting the unwanted children who currently are in foster care or institutions into loving homes.
It's easy to judge. It's easy to blame. It's a lot harder to find solutions that would make women choose to go forward with unwanted pregnancies.
Name a place where a woman is prohibited from getting an abortion? You can't, because no such place exists. So why the need to make excuses for something that's not even prohibited?
And I noticed you completely ignore the preponderance of women who have multiple abortions. Why did you ignore this Ridge? You claim no one WANTS an abortion, but it doesn't stop the multiples.
You don't have an answer, that's why. It's easy to defend the common denominators. Not so easy when you're trying to make it sound like there's nothing wrong with abortion in the first place. Your whole write up was an apology for abortion, a defense of its use. Not one single bad word attributed to the act of aborting a fetus. Why is that?
If it's legal, then it's moral. That's the liberal way.
Still trying to find a copy of the actual opinion, but it looks like the judge sidestepped the 4th amendment issue (which would be the patient's rights) and based his decision on 1st amendment grounds - in that the government is mandating what the doctor has to do and say in the absence of a compelling state interest.
Name a place where a woman is prohibited from getting an abortion? You can't, because no such place exists. So why the need to make excuses for something that's not even prohibited?
And I noticed you completely ignore the preponderance of women who have multiple abortions. Why did you ignore this Ridge? You claim no one WANTS an abortion, but it doesn't stop the multiples.
You don't have an answer, that's why. It's easy to defend the common denominators. Not so easy when you're trying to make it sound like there's nothing wrong with abortion in the first place. Your whole write up was an apology for abortion, a defense of its use. Not one single bad word attributed to the act of aborting a fetus. Why is that?
If it's legal, then it's moral. That's the liberal way.
There is no place where a woman is prohibited from getting an abortion. But there are many places were a woman cannot get an abortion because there are no doctors or facilities that perform abortions. Take a look at Texas. There a numerous towns and locales in Texas that are literally more than a hundred miles away from an abortion provider. You pooh-pooh that, if woman wants an abortion she can make the trip. But trips are an expense. Taking a day off work is an expense. Taking two days off work is even more expense, but anti-abortion advocates know this, so that's one of the reasons they like waiting periods.
So there is no place where a woman is legally prohibited from getting an abortion, but there are many places where the costs and time involved are prohibitive.
And why do you ask a question, and then assert that I don't have an answer? Pretty presumptuous of you, I say. Why do women sometimes have multiple abortions? Because they find themselves repeatedly in situations that cause them to have unwanted pregnancies. There are a variety of situations that could be involved.
Why do you focus on blame and punishment? Why do you think it's okay to coerce and control women? Those are two good questions, why don't you answer them?
abortion destroys a fetus not a baby. The fetus has a beating heart and is a life which is destroyed. the law was struck down because it made women go through a sonogram which is totally unnecessary and subjected to a doctor telling them info they already know. the law was meant to try to make a woman feel guilty for her choice.
And God forbid anyone should feel guilty these days for anything they've done.
We have 1,000 warning labels on everything imaginable now to keep people from making stupid mistakes. I see no reason why a woman should not be 100% informed of what she is about to do. (Yes, I am female; yes, I am a mother.)
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.
