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.
You do know our birth rate has been declining. And illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this. We are talking about abortion
Illegal immigrants were brought up as they are an expense for taxpayers, and an expense that leftists don't seem to mind supporting at that. With Trump as president, once we get that under control, we can just divert those funds to care for any children of citizens who need it
Dumb libs....stricter abortion laws will prevent abortions.....unlike strict gun laws which obiously will not reduce shootings at all...in fact they would only make them worse!!!!! DUH!!!!!!! Logic.
Except your stance is hypocritical.
You don't want the government to stay out of/largely stay out of regulating firearms, but want the government involved re banning abortion.
There are essentially a combination of 4 basic stances re the two issues of firearms and abortion:
1. The government should be as uninvolved with both as possible (my view)
2. The government should be as involved with both as possible.
3. The government should be involved with restricting abortion, but stay away from more firearm regulation (your stance)
4. The government should be uninvolved re abortion, but we should have as much regulation as possible re firearms.
And I'm pretty sure you said that there was an increase in the number of abortions because of Roe V Wade. I don't think you can continue to make that claim and say that it's "commonsensical", that constitutes an opinion, not a fact.
Those arguments are normative, ultimately holding that, under a faithful reading of the commerce clause (something that I agree with actually as an originalist), congress could not do so or should not be able to do so. Unfortunately, the Court's current jurisprudence has so expanded the commerce clause that such a ban would be upheld. I don't support such a reading, btw, but that's beside the point.
And if a woman chooses to do neither, a child is born and life saved. What is so difficult to understand about that? I don't know if I believe you about Mexico and survival odds, though.
The bolded is the key word.
If you want to spend the rest of your life trying to convince the women in your family......and any woman who is willing to listen to you....until you are proverbially blue in the face to not have an abortion, there is nothing wrong with that....but...we men should have no ultimate/final say in the matter.
Yeah and a lose for you since you will be paying welfare for them. So any state who doesn’t allow abortion should have no right to complain about paying for Medicaid and food stamps for these families
Except some of us who live in lower tax/regulation/etc. states also want the government to stay out of regulating women's wombs (unlike the person you're replying to) and incurring expenses involved in that interference.
As you can see from the link, abortions skyrocketed in the years after Roe was decided, which is expected as it had become easier/legal to abort. Increased access to contraception is what brought the rate back down. But I think you'll find few pro life folks who are anti contraception. I am certainly pro contraception.
That may be, but the OP is not, which is part of why her incessant complaints about abortion are so annoying.
The thing that bugs me the most about restricted access is that it reduces the safety aspect to a financial equation. Women who can afford a plane ticket out of the country, etc. will still get safe abortions no matter what. Those who can't might have to look at a coat hanger, intentionally falling down a flight of stairs, etc. if they can't get one locally.
True. And the ones who can't afford the plane ticket are the ones you'd rather see getting the abortions in the first place.
That's simply not true. I haven't seen a law in the US that criminalizes a woman for having an abortion, in the past they just made it unlawful for providers to perform abortions. Well guess what, there are plenty of people out there who will still perform abortions, and that includes many doctors. They will do exactly what they did when I was in high school and abortion was illegal, they will perform the abortion and call it a "D&C".
Making abortions illegal will lower the number of abortions performed. It won't stop them completely but it will lower the numbers. Not every woman who chooses to have a legal and easily obtained abortion will choose to have an illegal and more difficult to obtain one. I'm not saying that's a good thing for society as a whole but it's true.
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.
Except your stance is hypocritical.
