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.
So you DO want politicians to control women's health? Pass laws regarding medical care?
I thought pro abortioners were against that. Huh.
You do not understand the difference between an offer of solid pre-natal and post-natal medical services to those who wish to have children as opposed reinstating 1865 legislation criminalizing women?
If Arizona Republicans had any sense at all in their brains the legislator would have put abortion on the ballot let the people of Arizona decide.
There was an attempt to get enough signatures to protect abortion in our state constitution on the ballot they came up short didn't have enough time. They were able to collect 176k signatures yet they only started in May of 2022 the deadline was August 22 if they had a full year they would have had more than enough to reach the needed 450k signatures.
I am conservative and I am a registered Republican. I have to say, I feel sorry for the pregnant women in Arizona. Especially those who cannot afford traveling to another state. This kind of unnecessary law only punish the poor. Let's all be honest about it.
I don't know if these Arizona Republicans understand the consequences of this type of law.
What these laws do is they place physicians in an untenable position not knowing that if they serve the medical interests of their patients, whether they'll be subject to criminal liability. At best, it will make physicians hesitate to save the life of a woman; at worst, outright refuse to.
There are some clear-cut cases where a woman is acutely hemorrhaging or involved in a trauma situation where continuing the pregnancy puts a woman's life at risk.
Other scenarios, like maternal cardiac issues, present a growing risk to a mother the further her pregnancy progresses, but might not pose a clear "imminent" risk. Or in the case where a mother is diagnosed with cancer, it might not be clear whether termination of her pregnancy would be allowed in order for her to pursue treatment such as chemotherapy.
I would argue that medicine is a gray area. So it is better not send the doctors to prison. Yikes
I agree with this entire post. It is truly scary when lay people with a religious agenda are allowed to write laws that the rest of us are forced to follow. Women's lives will be lost through this law, but so many here consider that inconsequential. As if the life of a real, live human being has no value compared to the cells that might be growing inside her womb. THOSE we must save at all costs, even if that cost is the life of the woman herself.
They are misogynists. There can be no way around it. Women don't matter.
I agree with this entire post. It is truly scary when lay people with a religious agenda are allowed to write laws that the rest of us are forced to follow. Women's lives will be lost through this law, but so many here consider that inconsequential. As if the life of a real, live human being has no value compared to the cells that might be growing inside her womb. THOSE we must save at all costs, even if that cost is the life of the woman herself.
They are misogynists. There can be no way around it. Women don't matter.
yeah. really don't know why religion/political beliefs have anything to do with women's health.
This kind of law is ridiculous. I will say no to it.
I don't care if you are liberal, conservative, religious, or whatever the hell you are, let's think about these poor women for a second. Wow just wow
I am conservative and I am a registered Republican. I have to say, I feel sorry for the pregnant women in Arizona. Especially those who cannot afford traveling to another state. This kind of unnecessary law only punish the poor. Let's all be honest about it.
I don't know if these Arizona Republicans understand the consequences of this type of law.
It'll be a cold summer day in Phoenix when Arizona republicans give a damn about the consequences to the poor of the laws they pass. Republican leadership is a bunch of privileged elites in this state. The poor are expected to serve them at low wages, do as instructed and keep their mouths shut.
At least where I lived in the 60's when abortion was illegal they did plenty of them. They just called it a D&C rather than an abortion.
They can't do this anymore in a lot of places. I know when my mother was suffering from a miscarriage back in the '70s she was hemorrhaging for five days and the doctors refused to do a D&C because "there still was a chance to save the fetus." She was in a Catholic hospital, and they were letting her just bleed to death because of this totally unrealistic "chance" that the pregnancy could be saved.
Meanwhile, she had five living children at home that those doctors didn't give a rip about. She needed three blood transfusions to survive--transfusions that would not have been necessary if they had just done the D&C when the miscarriage began.
This was back in the early 1970s. We thought we left this kind of horror show behind us once Roe v Wade was passed, but lookie here, the American Taliban is back! And this is what we have to look forward to again.
Really? In those rare cases, how far along was the pregnancy? Do you even know? If the victim was only 1 or 2 months along, she may not even known, herself, that she was pregnant. I doubt anyone would be accused of double homicide in such a circumstance, but let's take a look at the specific cases, since you raise the point. Most likely, the woman was at least around halfway through her 9 months, or in the final trimester.
Links?
All you have to do is look at state fetal murder/homicide laws. Many, including Arizona (the topic of this thread), clearly indicate that fetal murder/homicide charges apply when an unborn child is killed at any stage in its development.
You do not understand the difference between an offer of solid pre-natal and post-natal medical services to those who wish to have children as opposed reinstating 1865 legislation criminalizing women?.
You do understand that you are talking about both sides of your mouth.
Understanding Jesus does not have to be a religious experience. As I stated, reading the Bible in college was mandatory in the humanities classes I took. We studied it like any other text. No religion or praying involved. Just looking at what it all meant in context.
Jesus was a complicated character. And people think he was a stoner, tolerant of ANY type of behavior. They reduce him to a caricature similar to Shaggy in Scooby do. Not. Even. Close.
I'm against abortion because it is an unprovoked, deadly act of violence against the vulnerable who cannot protect themselves. Is that not a good enough reason for YOU?
Abortion is so terrible it doesn't need to be argued against using religion. The barometer of basic human decency reveals it is a despicable act. No matter atheist, apathetic, or devout.
This is exactly why I oppose convenience abortion (98.3% of all abortions). 98.3% of abortions are the intentional killing of a human life just for the sake of someone else's convenience. It's a CLEAR violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
The Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP, is the belief that people should be free to act as they choose with the exception that they may not initiate force, or the threat of force, against another or their property. Like the Golden Rule and the principle behind volunteering and charitable giving, the NAP can serve as a guide to help each of us live an ethical life.
Using abortion to kill a baby just because one doesn't want one is most definitely unprovoked lethal force initiated and used against another.
What ever happened to the left's concept of "coexist?" Killing others just for the sake of convenience is the exact OPPOSITE of coexisting. It's lethal oppression.
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.
If the victim was only 1 or 2 months along, she may not even known, herself, that she was pregnant. I doubt anyone would be accused of double homicide in such a circumstance, but let's take a look at the specific cases, since you raise the point. Most likely, the woman was at least around halfway through her 9 months, or in the final trimester.