Not to mention that in many of the remaining cases, they are early-to-mid second trimester abortions unconscionably delayed due to the meddling of pro-life forces that are constantly striving to use every little wedge they can get to make abortion harder and less safe.
There are only two sides in the US right now, AV. You are either pro-choice, or you’re with the pro-lifers. If you’re with them, unfortunately, you’re with all of them, because all of the “reasonable restrictions on elective abortions” and “access to health care and contraceptives” people are on the pro-choice side already, with vanishingly few exceptions and almost none I can think of in politics.
Lest you think I am playing partisan games, I could make the exact same accusation going the opposite direction with regards to firearms.
The problem is, the “point” that you consider anything worth anything is irrelevant in the face of real women with real pregnancies in real crises. Your consideration of the worth of a fetus flies directly in the face of a real family considering whether or not they can face months of a pregnancy carrying a fetus that will never live, or will live only briefly and in agony. Your consideration of the worth of a fetus flies directly in the face of a woman considering whether or not her cancer treatment can wait another 14, 18, 20 weeks.
I saw a picture from a protest sign just this evening that said “politicians make lousy physicians.” Not only is that true, uninvolved bystanders make even worse ones. The only fetus you have any reasonable claim to determine the worth of is the one inside your own uterus. Beyond that, you’re meddling into real people’s lives, imposing your own beliefs in a fashion that has real world consequences that you will never ever bear.
Why are you and your considerations possibly that important?
Sorry, the hypothetical case of a 1000 monkeys flying out my butt is soaking up all the time for the hypothetical queue.
It’s not merely about comfort zone. It’s about moral stance. The more the fetus resembles a person, the more I am morally obligated to influence society in the direction of focusing maximal resources towards education, early detection and early resolution, and away from late term abortions.
Pretty sure I’ve said more than once that the health of the mother is major factor. If I failed to do so, I’m doing so now. I’d certainly also factor in the chances of quality of life if there are serious defects with the fetus.
I oppose the pro-life people even more strongly. I certainly support unrestricted access to first trimester abortions even in the case of underage minors.
Wipe the foam off your mouth.
My considerations are important because I have a vote and I can influence the votes of others. If you want to change my mind, you’ll have to do more than stamp your feet and utter axioms you consider non-negotiable.
Rights are ALWAYS a tradeoff between or among individuals and society.
I was pointing out that" human life" began eons ago, it is true that the fertile egg is a human egg, but not a human being, it is not developed any more than a fertile chicken egg can be called a chicken, a pollenated apple blossom an apple, or a fetus of any animal, until it can be recognized as that. If one looks at the early stages of many animals (even a frog) it is hard to tell what species it is.
Both the egg and sperm do contain human componants, but when united they are not yet a human being. I happened to see a early pregnancy when I had 2 miss carriages years ago, and there was no way to recognize them as a human being. Had they stayed in the womb for several weeks more , then yes, they would have developed into a person,at that stage one couldn’t even determine the sex. It surely could not be called a baby, no more than a fertile egg could be called a chicken!
After one can be recognized as a person, I believe it is a person, born or not, yet there are circumstances when it can be the chioice of the mother or the unborn (at that stage child) and I believe it is the law, unless the mother’s life is at stake. If a woman has carried to that stage, then in my opinion she has given her consent,but if it is her life or the unborn’s life that is her decision as long as it is legal.She may have other children to consider. There are many circumstances that other’s may not be aware of, such as if the mother has cancer etc..
A born person is a person until it can no longer live.I could be wrong , but I understand that if there is no brain activity it is then declared dead. In some children born that are called born with out a brain, they still have a brain stem, so some of the functions work for awhile. and in those cases (I believe it is most cases) the parents want the child and it is a very difficult time for them. When a person dies we say,"he or she was a nice (or not) a nice person…past tense!
Yes, but the sperm does contain human life and the pro-lifers say it is when life begins…Life began eons ago, and is passed on trhough the parents. The componants are in a fertile egg, but as a hen’s egg is not considered a chicken, a fertile egg is not called a" person" or a baby! They are ‘expecting’ it to grow into a baby(person)!!
No I am not embarrassed because you do not understand my point! I am talking about human “Life” which the pro_lifers use, and it is a proven fact that even your life was passed on to you through your ancestors!!!
I realize when name calling starts it shows the person is not trying to make a point, or learn anything, so i will take that with a grain of salt. I keep trying to tell you that a sperm contains (human life) that you seem so intent on defending ,but yet have told me how many of the born children you are sacrificing to help through adulthood, physically, finacially, and emotionally. Are you willing to pay more taxes to support the ones who cannot care for their children,are you going with out any or all luxeries to support them when they are already born. If not in my opinion(and I do have a right to my opinion) you are just pro-birth not pro-life.
No, you need to watch this Frontline special called “The Last Abortion Clinic”. There has been a concerted effort ever since Roe v. Wade to completely remove women’s clinics and it has been astoundingly successful. There are places in the South where women have to drive 3 hours to get services because clinics in their area were shut down. With the wait laws on the books, they would have to make two trips, which is hard to do if you have a crappy job that won’t give you time off. This is exactly their anti-choice’s people scheme.
Fortunately the number show us that left to choose for themselves that’s pretty much what happens. Most abortions in the first trimester and early 2nd, before viability. I think the ones that happen after that are primarily health issues, birth defects, etc.
This is a very good video, I watched it a while back and really enjoyed it. Well, enjoyed is not the right term. It made me really angry, but the sneaky little ways that states have been trying to get around Roe V. Wade is really infuriating and enlightening.
Meh, that’s a chickenshit answer. C’mon, all U.S. abortion laws gone… what happens, worst case?
Or, if that seems too far-fetched, what about a preliminary step first - what if Americans who demand laws based on little more than their religious beliefs lost most of their influence?
I understand there are states that do this. I’m not sure what can be done short of a constitutional amendment that would stop states from overlaying additional requirements on the abortion process.
Take a look at a map of the midwest. There are states where no matter where you put a clinic, people would have a long drive to get there and often these folks don’t have transportation reliable enough that they’d risk a trip outside the county.
I think urban folks don’t really understand the different level of civilization a lot of these rural areas are stuck in. In many of them Aunt Bea and Andy would be quite comfortable.
As long as we’re talking hypotheticals, it’s a hell of a lot more likely in my mind in a country where with minor qualifications, anyone 18 or over can vote their conscience, that the right-thinking minority loses most of its influence.
Personally I think the question is pretty damn arrogant. Axioms are essentially religious beliefs. At some base level, we all believe what we believe. Undo that and even the most logically constructed arguments fall like a house of cards. Plenty of people think their position is “only logical”.
Some so-called “activist” judges might be useful, to hand down decisions that say in effect, “what you’re doing is perverting the spirit of the law, so cut it out!”
So things are hard in some places. Why make them harder?
Yeah, that’s all well and good, but how about answering the question? Suppose a state like South Dakota passes some truly egregious law (i.e. before a woman can get an abortion, she must volunteer for a week at a neonatal ICU) that (eventually) gets SCOTUS to crack the whip, declaring that all laws restricting abortion in the first trimester are null and void. No more waiting periods, no more parental notification - nothing. What happens as a result?
Again, show me where I said “abortion is an important issue to the whole of society”. In fact, show me where I said “abortion is a major issue”. Time and post number, please. If you’re not going to do that, then you’d be well served not engaging in this straw man anymore, though I suspect you won’t do any of aforementioned ask and will continue on this path. While I’m waiting, I suppose I’ll take this time to quote myself so we can all see what I really said.
[QUOTE=Me]
Gay marriage ranks lower on the totem poll than does abortion. Abortion is a much bigger issue in American politics than is gay marriage.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Me]
[Abortion is] significant enough to cause more people to vote Republican than they otherwise would.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Me]
Because “more important than gay marriage” doesn’t mean “the most important issue”.
[/quote]
You’re welcome.
When you want to start responding to something I actually said, feel free.
It absolutely is important.
Virtually any election in the South and midwest.
First of all, my cite didn’t say that one in five Americans are influenced by abortion. Somewhere around half of all Americans take abortion into consideration when voting, and 19% of all Americans vote solely on the abortion issue. Second of all, I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said “the whole of society cares about abortion” os something similar.
Try re-reading what I type out again.
Why do you keep mentioning Rick Santorum?
Apparently, you can’t.
Yes, that’s what I meant.
So let me make sure I have this correct. You’ve redefined the women’s health exception to mean “at the discretion of the physician”, have thusly assumed this to be true and have then proceded to argue that states with a health exception on the books really treated this as a sweeping legalization of abortion, which Roe v. Wade was and, as a result when Roe v. Wade came around, then nothing really changed? Hmmm, really? I don’t think so. Prior to 1973, only four states allowed for unrestricted abortion-- New York, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska-- which accounted for 57 electoral votes, which works out to about 10.8% of the population living in states which laws which weren’t affected by Roe v. Wade.
I’m going to quote Ginsburg here:
Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. The political process was moving in the early 1970s, not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.
[/quote]
^
Explain to me again how many states had laws prior to 1973 which left abortion legal upon request? Because, you know, I’m pretty sure that number is four. I don’t know what kind of ridiculous arugment you’re on, but you’re going to be hard pressed to argue legal upon request was anything other than a “radical departure” from what already existed in a significant part of the U.S. Hell, even most supporters of Roe v. Wade will tell you that.
Then you should be focused on ending abortion restrictions because as I’ve already demonstrated, those restrictions invariably push abortions later into the pregnancy by severely limiting access to comprehensive reproductive services.
It seems to me that you’d be happiest with an abortion policy much like that of the Netherlands with a complete abortion restriction after 24 weeks and a partial restriction at 21 weeks. It’s important to realize, however, that the Dutch got there not by making abortion difficult to access, but by making contraception affordable (free, as a matter of fact) and comprehensive family-planning and sexual education a priority in an effort to reduce the need for abortion. It should also be noted that because of this access to early term abortion the need for later term abortion is virtually non-existent. Although, I can’t find any answers to what happens when a Dutch woman discovers her cancer has returned 25 weeks into her pregnancy or that she is carrying a 25-week hydrocephalic fetus. I’m not at all comfortable with preventing the woman from terminating the pregnancy at her discretion in those instances.
In the Netherlands, unplanned pregnancy is correctly deemed to be the crux of the problem and that is what the Dutch have focused on eliminating. Given the fact that no other country has a lower abortion rate, despite a restrictive abortion policy, it should be obvious where your efforts and support should lie if you want to achieve that which you say is important to you. It would be much easier for me to accept your position if you’re weren’t so eager to condemn women (the earlier girl from South Dakota, for instance) who have not been provided easy access to contraception and reproductive education.
Although, to be honest, even the Netherlands’ policy flies in the face of the concept of bodily autonomy that I personally deem inviolable.
Presumably these people have access to hospitals? Why do abortions have to be performed in a clinic? What’s wrong with performing them wherever people usually obtain surgical medical services?