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.
There are multiple issues tied up here, both on the moral and legal side. On the moral side, as long as the baby is physically part of the mother's body (meaning before it's born), it should be fully under her control as any other part of her body. End of story,
But the legal side has been vastly muddied. Based on any reasonable reading of the Constitution, there's nothing that give the Federal Government or Federal Courts jurisdiction to decide this. But because of a badly decided previous precedent (Griswald V Connecticut), we ended up with Row V Wade. It's not so much that Roe needs to go so much as Griswald need to, which would then have the same effect. Of course that would lead to a situation where some states would allow abortion, and some wouldn't.
Then there would need to be a national discussion on what explicitly would we want to do about the rights that were improperly read into the constitution under Griswald.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
After the fetus becomes viable, it's not just her body.
Fetal homicide laws directly contradict that. They give a fetus the exact same right to life 6 month old babies, etc., have. Abolish fetal homicide laws. Equal Protections Clause.
Fetal homicide laws, written for anything before viability are an unjust law. They should be stricken.
Furthermore, we are entering a Golden Age of Medicine where a fertilized egg can be a source for undifferentiated embryonic stem cells that could save the lives of ACTUAL REALIZED human beings and extend and improve the lives of everyone on the planet. So we really need to tighten up our definitions and radicalize our rejection of irrationality and mysticism.
After the fetus becomes viable, it's not just her body.
True. I had a friend who had a late term abortion after having tried for many years to conceive. She aborted well after any arbitrary "viability" deadline. This was because she (the fetus) had a severe form of osteoimperfectii and had her brain growing outside of her skull. Not only was she suffering (multiple broken bones in utero) but she was not going to survive birth. So my friend had the late term abortion. That sort of decision should be made between a woman and her doctor. Don't you agree?
Rather than abortion control how about a common sense discussion regarding prevention, address the disease rather than the symptom. How about pulling funding from Planned Parenthood for clinics, how about the court battles requiring employers to provide contraception coverage, termination of grants to help prevent teenage pregnancy. None of these actions make any remote sense if you truly want to lower unwanted pregnancies but instead here is a discussion focused on changing abortion regulations. We have one of the highest unwanted pregnancy rates of any civilized country, reducing that number should be a common goal but instead the usual tired old focus.
Nobody wants to take away your abortions ladies, we just want some common sense abortion controls. I mean, why would so many of these people actually need an abortion? Can't we come to some sort of compromise? Perhaps we could eliminate abortions for anyone who's had an abortion before? What about strict background checks for anyone seeking an abortion? What about closing the Planned Parenthood loophole? These seem like common sense abortion controls that everyone should be able to support right?
Perhaps you keep your judgmental nonsense out of my uterus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
Nobody is coming to take away anyone's abortion, we just want common sense abortion controls to make this country safer and to protect children.
LOL. Try again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
But what if some Americans are scared of abortions
Scared of abortions? Don't have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
In fact, even more so, because my abortion poses no threat to your life, unlike your gun, which could very easily be used to end my life.
The OP insists on comparing apples and oranges, which of course is pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx
Thank your mother every day that she chose to give you life.
My mother was mature and financially secure at the time she was pregnant with me. She and my father had made the mutually agreed upon decision to have a child. Alas, that's not the case with every pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx
Wow. Some women must really hate kids.
Some men (and women) must really hate women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Perfect. I can finally sign your report card. Now have a great Summer and enjoy the second grade!
Ha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I have asked this question multiple times, and NO one has answered it:
That's because your question is irrelevant and illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The 14,000+ nationwide publicly funded (Title X) Family Planning Clinics are more than adequate to provide for the need. PP has only 650 clinics and 2.7 million patients.
Not all of those clinics are accessible to the general public (but kudos to you for finally ceasing to call Title X recipients "public health clinics") - some are in schools, others are in shelters, some are accessible only to sub-sets of people that the organization serves and not to people who walk in off the street, etc. In both the towns where I live and work, the only Title X-funded organizations are Planned Parenthood sites - they're about 20 miles apart, with no other Title X-funded organization in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
79% of its surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.
Planned Parenthood, like any other business, locates where services are most needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4dognight
I can't speak for the OP but I can't fathom how anyone calling themselves human with a heart can think killing an unborn child is an acceptable remedy for their "ailment".
I highly doubt a woman who has an abortion in order to save her own life does so lightly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why don't they use the contraceptives they can get at the exact same PP facilities where they get their abortions so that their very high rate of abortion isn't necessary in the first place?
How do you know they're not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Access? You think 14000 public healthcare facilities isn't enough access?
Why do you think people are so inherently stupid?
Would anyone think it's inherently stupid to confuse publicly funded with publicly operated and publicly accessible? Or to believe that all 14,000 Title X-funded organizations are open to the public?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
How does a 35 year old woman get contraceptives at a high school clinic? It has been shown to you in the past that not all of those "14000 public healthcare facilities" offer contraception. Some are dentists, I believe.
Your "14000" figure appears to be a myth anyway. More numbers:
"In 2010, subsidized family planning services were provided at 8,409 safety-net health centers—3,165 (38%) were federally qualified health centers, 2,439 (29%) were health department clinics, 1,324 (16%) were other clinics, 817 (10%) were Planned Parenthood centers and 664 (8%) were hospital clinics."
"Heavy patient loads are common at these clinics, says Sara Rosenbaum, a health policy professor at George Washington University. Rosenbaum says these community health centers provide important services but aren't as equipped to provide the reproductive services that Planned Parenthood is known for.
'There are all kinds of reasons why it's not just a simple substitution of X for Y,' she says.
Rosenbaum points to Texas, where state lawmakers in 2011 reduced Planned Parenthood's funding. Dozens of family planning clinics closed and the birthrate for low-income women went up."
Sliding scale fees for family planning means those services are not always free.
Interesting stats, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
I haven’t found a single leftie in here smart enough to see the purpose of this thread, even after I spelled it out.
We're smart enough to know that you're trying - and failing miserably - to compare two incomparable topics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The entire thread is to use the same narrative the loony liberal left use against public firearm ownership, against them on the abortion issue.
See above. Talk about clueless ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're asking them to have critical thinking skills. They don't.
See above. It takes critical thinking skills to know when two topics cannot logically be compared, and any further discussion about the failed comparison would be pointless.
Rather than abortion control how about a common sense discussion regarding prevention, address the disease rather than the symptom. How about pulling funding from Planned Parenthood for clinics, how about the court battles requiring employers to provide contraception coverage, termination of grants to help prevent teenage pregnancy. None of these actions make any remote sense if you truly want to lower unwanted pregnancies but instead here is a discussion focused on changing abortion regulations. We have one of the highest unwanted pregnancy rates of any civilized country, reducing that number should be a common goal but instead the usual tired old focus.
Planned Parenthood should be funded privately, however abortion rights is its own issue and should be resolved in favor of freedom of choice. Abortion is not a symptom, it is a common sense solution to the desire not to bring a human being into the world that is not wanted and won’t be properly cared for. It also solves other problems such as not wanting to give birth to a human being with birth defects. It is barbaric that some people posit that is a moral position to mandate that someone carry to term a fetus that will develop into a human being with birth defects such as mental retardation or other malformations. If testing improves to the point where we can pinpoint particular birth defects with good accuracy, it MUST be the right of the parents to terminate that pregnancy.
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.
