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 did. Many times. It's the ABC/Washington Post poll. What it tells us is there's a BIG difference in the level of support for keeping abortion legal depending on the reason for the abortion.
Americans overwhelmingly support the 1.7% of abortions that are performed for physical health risk to mother and/or baby (+70, +44), rape or incest (+63), but are pretty evenly split on supporting the 98.3% of abortions that are performed solely for the sake of convenience. Support for the latter is only at 48% of Americans.
No link, and the one you put earlier was a news story that is not viewable without subscription.
I linked to an actual poll that is readily viewable.
The ABC/Washington Post poll clearly shows that 70% statistic frequently touted is a lie. Less than half of Americans support keeping elective (convenience) abortions legal.
16. Overall, do you think the decision whether or not a woman can have an abortion
should be (regulated by law) or should be (left to the woman and her doctor)?
Regulated by law 24%
Left to the woman and her doctor 70%
No opinion 6% https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-co...nAttitudes.pdf
Yeah that 5 minutes to book a plane ticket is tough.
The only wait time a person would need to get into any country, is one that requires a visa, and America has one of the most powerful passports in the world.
Actually, it is not. Japan, Singapore, Germany, South Korea, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, France, Ireland, Portugal, United Kingdom ALL rank ahead of the USA as to the number of countries they can enter visa free.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,583 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50619
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. Some are performed because the mother's life is at risk or the child in utero has a fatal flaw.
An elective abortion is one of convenience, performed solely because the woman doesn't want the baby. Less than half of Americans support keeping abortion for that reason legal. Less than half.
That's still elective.
No one is going to strap you down and remove a child, when the mother is saying she wants to keep the baby and is willing to take the risks involved.
All procedures that abort a living embryo/fetus are elective to the mother.
You've just created your own personal checklist of what is an acceptable reason for the mother to elect to abort.
I am sure many of the abortion doctors in red states will move to blue states and set up shop. Its supply and demand it always works itself out
“Supply & demand” does not always work itself out, please see all of history.
In the context of this thread, ‘The existence of a “free baby market” will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum’. (what the heck?)
“In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.”
Unlike the Ferenghi the Rules of Acquisition are not the sacred precepts upon which all of human society is based.
Here is someone who tried that tactic:
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.
The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.)
This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)
People "think" a lot of things, but until the duly elected officials in a state make it law, it's just that. A thought.
Don't you think it's a good idea to head off (prevent) the crappy, super extreme ideas from ever seeing the light of day? You expect people to let the worst happen and then try to change it?
Look at what Texas has already passed. They expect citizens to sue each other to enforce a law that so many women cannot physically comply with because they don't know they are pregnant within that 6 week limit.
The state governs now what I can put in my body. I'd don't believe there is any state, not even the most liberal where I can legally snort cocaine, inject heroin into my veins, drop an LSD tablet, etc. Where is the privacy argument when I want to buy/do all these things?
I think you have this backwards. I have never heard of any one asking for a law like this, mostly because it is absurd.
What we do have is a law, the federal National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 that makes it illegal for me to sell parts of my own body to someone else. What the hell business of the government is it if I want to sell a kidney to Arab sheikh for $10,000,000 so I can retire comfortably.
So no, we do not in any way have a right to privacy with our own bodies.
A uterus isn't "donated" to the baby. The uterus doesn't go with the baby when the baby is born.
A uterus is NOT an organ like any other and it is for a baby. That is precisely what a uterus is for, baby making.
If you do not know the difference between a soul and a sole, I think we can safely end this conversation here.
the state may on paper govern what you put in your body but the reality is much different. Go to any street corner in any city and ask around and illegal drugs are readily available. Did those laws on paper stop all those drug purchases and addictions? Do those paper laws really stop DUI? most laws are only worth the paper they are written on.
No, it's considered medically necessary. An abortion for the sake of a woman's convenience isn't medically necessary, it's elective, like cosmetic surgery.
Poll respondents themselves placed different approval levels on which reasons for abortion they support keeping legal. An abortion for the sake of a woman's convenience doesn't get much support, less than half would support keeping that legal.
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.
the Rules of Acquisition are not the sacred precepts upon which all of human society is based.