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.
When we put forth exceptions, we’re asking women to justify their decision, because they now have to fit a criteria.
If there’s an exception for rape, we’re forcing women to disclose that they’ve been raped in order to terminate. What does that look like? Who decides that they have been raped and are therefore allowed to abort? The doctor? A court? The family planning clinic? Is there the equivalent of a means test? Does date rape count? Lack of consent because she was intoxicated? Who’s going to decide whether she’s eligible? Is it only going to be for violent rape? Are we going to ask the woman to tell the whole story? What’s the threshold?
If the practitioner can be prosecuted for performing an abortion or providing medication on demand, what proof are they going to require in order to perform the procedure when exercising an exemption? Does it have to be reported to authorities first and a matter of record?
Does someone who’s a victim of incest now have to name their dad or brother? How does this work? What if they aren’t prepared for any of the anguish that goes with all that, in addition to being pregnant and requiring an abortion?
Are they going to be interrogated as to the circumstances of the conception?
When we put forth exceptions, we’re asking women to justify their decision, because they now have to fit a criteria.
If there’s an exception for rape, we’re forcing women to disclose that they’ve been raped in order to terminate. What does that look like? Who decides that they have been raped and are therefore allowed to abort? The doctor? A court? The family planning clinic? Is there the equivalent of a means test? Does date rape count? Lack of consent because she was intoxicated? Who’s going to decide whether she’s eligible? Is it only going to be for violent rape? Are we going to ask the woman to tell the whole story? What’s the threshold?
If the practitioner can be prosecuted for performing an abortion or providing medication on demand, what proof are they going to require in order to perform the procedure when exercising an exemption? Does it have to be reported to authorities first and a matter of record?
Does someone who’s a victim of incest now have to name their dad or brother? How does this work? What if they aren’t prepared for any of the anguish that goes with all that, in addition to being pregnant and requiring an abortion?
Are they going to be interrogated as to the circumstances of the conception?
The point is that rape among boys or girls or women is TRAUMATIC and therefore many do NOT report it or seek help right away.
I think you understand that, but you still seem to have the expectation that a girl or woman who gets raped should still be able to seek help, see a doctor and/or get a Plan B pill within 72 hours. Really?
WTH is wrong with your reading comprehension? I said she should see a doctor right away in case she has injuries or was impregnated! Geezus! Why the hell wouldnt she especially if she didn't want to be pregnant? Anything she would tell her doctor would be confidential so she wouldn't have to report it to anyone else if she didn't want to!
The major group of "freedom robbing people" are control freaks who detest federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system, and they recoil from the through of having the States, and people therein, exercising hometown rule over those matters which, “. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State” [see Federalist No. 45].
Indeed, our control freak crowd which has been obnoxiously using federal force for generations to impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.as the rule of law in every state in the country, and on every person in the United States, are the real "freedom robbing" crowd, and they object to rule of law as expressed in our written constitutions, state and federal.
JWK
How is allowing choice "freedom robbing" No one is forced to get an abortion, use birth control, marry a same sex partner, or enter into an interracial marriage. Freedom robbing would be allowing any of those to be banned. However, extremists like the Texas Taliban, love to control other people, and enforce their feelings on others. That's why they were all upset when same sex marriage was allowed, even though they could not articulate a single way in which they were hurt or their rights violated.
The major group of "freedom robbing people" are control freaks who detest federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system, and they recoil from the through of having the States, and people therein, exercising hometown rule over those matters which, “. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State” [see Federalist No. 45].
Indeed, our control freak crowd which has been obnoxiously using federal force for generations to impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.as the rule of law in every state in the country, and on every person in the United States, are the real "freedom robbing" crowd, and they object to rule of law as expressed in our written constitutions, state and federal.
JWK
Your remarks citing the Federalist Papers caused me to dig out my Hillsdale College book on the US Constitution. I believe it is the text they use teach their *required* course on it. (I received it as a gift when I sent them a donation.) Thank you.
Am I understanding you correctly? If a woman bears a child for whom she cannot provide support, you want to arrest her and put the baby, and any other children in foster care?
What do you want to do with the poor woman who gets pregnant and aborts the baby because she knows she cannot afford to keep it? She is not being neglectful of a child.
Not sure I am understanding your point.
If a poor woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she must use birth control or abstain. You're putting the horse before the cart now. If she gets preganant and can't afford to keep it there is always adoption. Why are you and yours' only option abortion all the time?
"Neglect of a child is considered a form of abuse. Generally, such neglect is described as the failure of a parent or caregiver to provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, or the failure to supervise a child to a degree that the child’s health, safety, and well-being could result in physical or emotional harm and injury. Criminal neglect can result in the responsible adult being placed in jail or prison and the child being removed from the home."
I still support prosecuting irresponsible females who have sex and bring children into the world who cannot afford to be mothers. To not prosecute this type of person is in effect, encouraging irresponsible behavior.
JWK
That seems more than a little judgmental. What if the woman was in fine financial shape when she got pregnant, then lost her husband and could no longer afford a child? Just what crime are you going to prosecute them for? Being poor is not a crime. People have sex, it's the third strongest drive after eating and sleeping. You aren't going to stop it by making it a crime for the poor to have children.
I am still not seeing how the reproductive health of a woman is anyone's business but hers.
An 11 or 12 year old girl may not know about Plan B. Or maybe she knows but can't get a ride to the drug store. Or she doesn't have a close adult she can go to for help or or or or... My point is, a traumatized person may not be thinking clearly enough to get help. A raped preteen might not even think about pregnancy.
We were discussing why a raped person might not get help until several weeks have passed. It is illogical to expect rational thought from a traumatized person.
That seems more than a little judgmental. What if the woman was in fine financial shape when she got pregnant, then lost her husband and could no longer afford a child? Just what crime are you going to prosecute them for? Being poor is not a crime. People have sex, it's the third strongest drive after eating and sleeping. You aren't going to stop it by making it a crime for the poor to have children.
I am still not seeing how the reproductive health of a woman is anyone's business but hers.
Reproductive health and abortion are not even remotely the same thing. Geez.
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.
Why the hell wouldnt she especially if she didn't want to be pregnant? Anything she would tell her doctor would be confidential so she wouldn't have to report it to anyone else if she didn't want to!
