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.
But if you had universal healthcare, continuing education and a higher minimum wage, you would have kept your baby, correct?
I think it's none of your business why a woman has an abortion and as long as no one is forcing you to have one maybe you should move on and find a new cause, like why so many families with children are now living in their car because they can't afford housing?
A friend of mine had an abortion because at the time she was just starting her surgical residency. It had nothing to do with money, her decision to abort a fetus the size of a lima bean was because she didn't feel that with the demands of a residency she could spend the time with the baby that it needs and deserves. That was some 30 years ago, she went on to have three children who are all successful adults.
Janelle, if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade someday, don't you think abortion horror stories will grow in number? We'll have back-alley abortions, abortions by shady non-medical people, etc., because there will still be a very big market for the service.
Reversing RvW will not make abortions illegal. It simply sends it back to the states. Being pro-life I do not even support the overturning of RvW because of that.
Some states will enact more restrictions while others would be allowed to make third trimester abortions legal again.
No one that really wants an abortion is going to allow a drive to a neighboring state stop her either.
Then why do you think throwing money at the issue will be a solution?
Is money the issue or not? Are you back peddling?
First of all, I am not backpedaling since I am not the one who brought up money, I am pretty sure that was you. And, I never said money was the solution.
To me, abortion isn't about money, it is about women having autonomy over their own bodies, it's all about choice.
But, yes, "throwing money at the problem", making it easier for women to afford children, would stop some women from choosing to abort.
Money can't fix everything. There are many other reasons a woman may choose to abort and that is why abortion should always be safe and legal.
First of all, I am not backpedaling since I am not the one who brought up money, I am pretty sure that was you. And, I never said money was the solution.
To me, abortion isn't about money, it is about women having autonomy over their own bodies, it's all about choice.
But, yes, "throwing money at the problem", making it easier for women to afford children, would stop some women from choosing to abort.
Money can't fix everything. There are many other reasons a woman may choose to abort and that is why abortion should always be safe and legal.
Abortion is not murder. Hyperbole. It's not a person or child yet, just cells and tissues and organs that will become a person if it continues to mature. While abortion is nothing to cheer about, forcing childbirth on someone who doesn't want it is worse.
Having an abortion is the same as killing someone you injured in a car accident. You aren't accountable or responsible for what happened, you instead eliminated the 'problem' so you do not HAVE to be responsible for it.
You do NOT want state or federal govt involved in your healthcare?
Then why are you demanding that they pay for it?
Do you not see the inconsistencies in your own argument?
A fetus isn't a "someone" so your car accident analogy is a fail.
Government run healthcare does not dictate healthcare decisions, it only dictates what it will pay for, just like any other form of insurance.
That year, there were 24 deaths from legal abortions (20% of the US) and 39 deaths from illegal abortions (80% of the US).
Back alley abortion deaths is a myth once the use of antibiotics became mainstream.
Since your point has been disproved, why do you continue to repeat it? Illegal abortion is not safer than legal abortion. Just give it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I never blamed Gosnell on RvW. Others said that RvW would stop the Gosnells, but it did not and yes, just like we still have today, some will kill their baby but I do not recall a mass murderer like Gosnell pre RvW and ancient Greece is irrelevant to my point.
We had the Inca's and while we are never going to completely ban abortions, further restrictions are not going to lead us to being like the Inca's either.
Who said RvW would stop someone like Gosnell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Reversing RvW will not make abortions illegal. It simply sends it back to the states. Being pro-life I do not even support the overturning of RvW because of that.
Some states will enact more restrictions while others would be allowed to make third trimester abortions legal again.
No one that really wants an abortion is going to allow a drive to a neighboring state stop her either.
Do you really think any state will make elective third trimester abortion legal? Why would they?
Do you really think any state will make elective third trimester abortion legal? Why would they?
"Third Trimester" is a deflection not worth arguing. Dr Haskell (and others) were performing Intact Dialation and Extraction abortions on viable fetuses counter to the allowable restrictions in RvW.
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.
