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.
I think we're seeing a backlash against the left's almost inhuman disregard for human life and they're going to have to walk back their abortion stance to find some sane middle ground. But can the left be restored to sanity and human decency or have they taken their ideology to an extreme where they can't find their way back?
The “left’s almost inhuman disregard?”
What passes for regard for human life in Alabama:
“In Alabama, a state that just passed a total ban on abortion, more than a quarter of children live in poverty; 30 percent of those children are under the age of five.
Only half of Alabama’s 67 counties have an obstetrician.
...
Alabama has the second highest infant mortality rate in the country.
...
There are no maternity leave or family leave laws in the state of Alabama.“
“In Alabama, a state that just passed a total ban on abortion, more than a quarter of children live in poverty; 30 percent of those children are under the age of five.
Only half of Alabama’s 67 counties have an obstetrician.
...
Alabama has the second highest infant mortality rate in the country.
...
There are no maternity leave or family leave laws in the state of Alabama.“
I'd bet California has similar stats. Probably more OB's just because of the big cities but just as many % children in poverty.
Those half Counties with no OB's are very rural / farming with very little population that can support little Medical of any type.
Plenty of Rural farming Counties in TX with a few Thousand people that have no Doctors but driving 30 miles to a doctor is normal.
What are the Family Leave laws in CA anyway? There are no nationwide Federal Laws and None in TX. Those policies and rule are left to Employers.
We support the lives of the innocent, defenseless unborn children that leftists are content with snuffing out under a sick and twisted "choice" rationale.
“Support” in what fashion?
Who is going to guarantee quality of life for these forced births?
Who is going to guarantee quality pre-natal and maternity care?
Who is going to provide sustenance and shelter?
Education?
Based on the current stats, it sure won’t be the pols in Alabama.
We support the lives of the innocent, defenseless unborn children that leftists are content with snuffing out under a sick and twisted "choice" rationale.
Now please support the medical costs of raising a child with severe birth defects that would not have survived before Roe v Wade but will now due to advances in medical technology.
BTW, how much do you think it will cost the Medicaid program to pay for baby born dependent to a ventilator and tube feedings its entire life? Break out your pocket book bro, this will come out of taxes and Medicare funding!
Quote:
Two programs, in particular, are especially helpful for children born with birth defects: Medicaid and CHIP. Both government programs provide health insurance coverage for eligible children, which usually lasts until the child’s 19th birthday.
I'd bet California has similar stats. Probably more OB's just because if the big cities but just as many children in poverty.
What are the Family Leave laws in CA anyway? There are no nationwide Federal Laws and None in TX. Those laws are left to Employers.
Deflecting to CA might be pertinent if/when CA passes a similar law.
CA, however, isn’t the topic of this thread.
Care to address how Alabama cares for its current living citizens?
From a local Alabama paper:
“In 2016, Alabama charted a rate of 9.1 deaths per 1,000 births, a statistical measurement referred to as an infant mortality rate which tracks the number of deaths before a child's first birthday. Alabama's rate was the only to top 9 and well above the national average of 5.9 per 1,000. If the state was its own country, it would rank alongside nations such as China and Oman. “
Don't get yourself pregnant in the first place, when you don't want a child, or have the ability to take care of one --- and there's no need for an abortion. In other words, be responsible, and keep your hands off my money to pay for your irresponsibility.
Get out your checkbook and be ready. All those born with severe birth defects will require hundreds of millions in medical care during their lifetime.
BTW, you may be asked to take a cut in your SS and Medicare benefits to keep in line with maintaining these children alive with all the best medical technology money can buy.
I think we can do both. But I've never been convinced by the argument that, because more can be done for those who are alive today, we should support snuffing out the lives of the unborn.
If it is an issue of the health/life of the mother, then that is a different story. I will never agree that someone should be forced to carry a child to term if it means serious risk to their own life. Simply put, you shouldn't have to put your own life on the line to save another's. But that's hardly the case with most that we are dealing with today. And nobody forces women who give birth against their wishes to keep the child. There is always adoption. For all those who say that a life in foster care is no life at all, I tell them to ask the countless individuals who grew up in the foster care system and now have lives/families of their own (living their own productive lives) whether they wish they were born.
Adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion. This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn't the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $5,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34.
Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your body for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies — not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway, their churches and etc. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents.
In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn't address all of them.
The Republicans in Alabama and in other states are egging for their agenda to be taken to the Supreme Court. The GOP wants to oppress women. They want control over a woman's body and her health and personal life decisions as evidenced by so many on this little forum.The Supreme Court, in 1973, affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right of women.
The right to safe and legal abortion has been the law of the land for more than 45 years, and is a part of the fabric of this country. Roe v. Wade is clearly established precedent, and it shouldn’t be up for debate. Yet opponents of abortion have made it increasingly difficult for people to access — and these threats are not slowing down. That is what these unconstitutional and increasingly harsher state laws are about.
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive autonomy and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what is next? Force her to undergo sterilization? Monitor all women's monthly cycles? Legislate the number of children or whom may reproduce?
You have options... BC, Condoms, IUD's, then if you and your partner really don't want kids...Vasectomies, Sterilization
So at 44 you are willing to risk getting pregant? Not me. Being a male, I'd be down at the Dr's office having my baby factory snipped and tied.
Pretty much a permanent way of never having to worry about it.
Except states (specifically Ohio) have bills in place to BAN any birth control method that prevents an egg from implanting calling them nontherapeutic abortions. “Nontherapeutic abortion” includes drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum. So there go IUDs and birth control pills as options.
And did you know Ohio also removed tubal ligation from its list of services provided in their family planning clinics? There goes tubal ligation (although men are still able to get vasectomies).
Ohio removes the most effective forms of birth control and then bans abortions. And people wonder why women are upset. They’re being put in no win positions unless they define “winning” as having as many kids as the state forces you to have.
Don't get yourself pregnant in the first place, when you don't want a child, or have the ability to take care of one --- and there's no need for an abortion. In other words, be responsible, and keep your hands off my money to pay for your irresponsibility.
"Get yourself pregnant"?
This is representative of those who want to make decisions on the reproductive rights of others?
SMDH.
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.
