I think that if men had to deal with abortion on a biological issue.
Am I saying that right?
There would be a clinic in every neighborhood, with a pool table and a wet bar.
A quote that’s been attributed to several different women is “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Heard that a million times. More likely, men would plop out babies, go back to work that day and brag with their buddies about whose pregnancy was the hardest but they did it anyway.
And women have never been shy about telling men what they should and shouldn’t do. Abortion would be outlawed because it might kill a female.
Do you believe a frozen Embryo is a frozen child? Life began eons ago,it is a passed on thing. Do you also mourn the death of a man’s sperm that didn’t make it to the ova or all the sperm that die? They have human life that they lose.
If the woman is in danger of dying and has a reason of self defence is that moral in your belief?
If it were only for procreation then why is it pleasurable for sterile women or people past the age of being able to bear a child, like one past menapause?
To be completely fair, two out of three of these are weak arguments. No one on the pro-life side mourns unfertilized ova, and very, very few mourn wasted sperm. (Some oppose sex that is not performed for the purpose of procreation, and some oppose masturbation, but almost no one holds every sperm to be a potential human life.)
However, yes, many on that side do hold frozen embryos to be human lives, and oppose their destruction, as well as opposing their unnecessary creation.
(Many on the pro-life side do not object to in vitro fertilization, to help a woman conceive when other methods fail. However, they are not happy when several embryos are created this way, yet only one is implanted.)
As much as I disagree with these guys, it is best to try to understand what they really believe, so as to avoid making erroneous assumptions.
I’d give it maybe three weeks to a month from discovery. Well, considering some people, I’d give it three weeks to a month from the time a reasonable person would have discovered it. Of course we both know that any increment of time would be completely arbitrary and subjective, I’d bet it’s why you asked.
Also murder. Maybe terrorism too. Could qualify as arson, but would definitely qualify as a bombing. I’m gonna go with arsoninistic terrorist murder bombing of the murders.
And how many low-income women do you think can come up with $1,380* (or more) in three weeks to a month?
I dont really know. I’m not sure it matters. If it’s deemed medically necessary then I’m pretty sure the hospital will perform now and bill you later, which gives you plenty of time to scratch up the cash.
If it’s not deemed medically necessary then poor mothers are in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to the cost of medical treatment. That is, the longer you wait to get treatment that must be paid out of pocket the more exspensive things are liable to be.
$1300 is on the high side, but no, it’s not cheap. No matter what method you use. Hell, a lot of it. comes down to what state you live in.
No, hospitals will not perform medically necessary abortions without pay. Not unless it’s a lifethreatening emergency that only an abortion will fix, and sometimes not even then, if they’re religious. Hospitals don’t have to provide any care but stabilizing emergency care.
And yes, of course it puts her in the same boat at people who can’t afford other medical care. The difference is that no one is telling Granny that if she can’t come up with the funds for her knee replacement in a month, she can’t have it. She’s got as much time as she, her body, and her doctor are comfortable with to save up and have it done.
Throwing up legal, logistical, and financial roadblocks and simultaneously shortening the window of opportunity for legal abortion are techniques for making abortion unaccessible, since they can’t quite (yet) make it completely illegal.
I stand corrected on the medically necessary front.
Health care costs are a related but very different topic. Requiring payment for services may be a barrier, but I don’t think it’s stepping on anyone’s right to choose.
I don’t have a problem with requiring payment for abortions. Doctors have bills to pay, and should be compensated for their work.
What I have a problem with are the unnecessary regulations that make it more expensive than it has to be. Mandatory waiting periods requiring multiple days off work and paying for childcare, multiple appointments for things that could be done in one visit, closing down or making abortion clinic regulations so restrictive that they can’t be met, reducing the number of clinics and increasing transportation costs… These things are barriers to care that to impact the right to choose. And none them are medically necessary.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
Are these regulations stayed or federal?
A profound statement to be sure. Equality is a high bar to clear on any meaningful subject.
Assuming you meant “state”, why does it matter? If it’s a pointless, obstructionist regulation that makes abortion harder to access while in no way improving its medical safety, what difference does the authority of the regulation make?
State.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wyoming are down to one clinic that provides abortions in each state because of laws like this. Kentucky and West Virginia have 2 each. Half of Texas’s abortion clinics closed between the passing HB2, one of the worst TRAP* laws, in the summer of 2013, and the summer of 2016. (More may have closed since, I don’t have more recent numbers.)
That’s a lot of real estate without access to an abortion provider within a couple hour drive.
*Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers - not a slur, that’s what the people making the laws call them. They’re not interested in pretending otherwise.
Keen eye Bryan. Looks like I was autocorrected.
It matters becuase I want to know the answer, thanks.
Ah, HB2. What a mess that was, clinics shut down everywhere. I’ve seen first hand the problems people face when they’ve got to drive 250 miles round trip for a medical procedure that was previously 10 miles away. I don’t know about 2016. We lost all of ours prior.
Drat, I had a misplaced comma there that obscured the meaning, and it’s too late to edit.
I meant, they passed HB2 and half the clinics had closed by the summer of 2016. More may have closed after that, I don’t know.
I live in Texas, your meaning was perfectly clear. Hb2 shut down a metric shit ton of resources where they were needed.
The larger population centers have resources out the ass in a number of ways, but those of us in the sticks (pop less than 200k) get fucked.