Pro-human life obviously, or must you be so overliteral? :dubious:
Because most people in the U.S. aren’t willing or able to think on this issue any further than their particular political/religious leader’s talking points. When it’s their life on the line, they recognize that waiting periods, especially, are particularly cruel, particularly pointless and do absolutely nothing but increase the cost, the problems and the potential for complications involved.
Supporting waiting periods says that you are a short-sighted, self-serving, cruel joke of an individual.
Despite it being mandated in several supposedly more “progressive” countries like Germany.
For the record: I oppose waiting periods, and am completely comfortable with abortion on demand up to the point of viability of the fetus. I would hope that no doctor would perform an abortion on a viable fetus unless the woman’s life or health were threatened.
Having said that, I think you’re wrong. If you look at the Gallop poll, a 24 hour waiting period is supported by 70% of women and 60% of Democrats. Seventy percent of women! I don’t think you can explain that by people mindlessly following some political or religious leader.
But the real kicker is that fewer than 25% of Americans think abortion should be legal in the 2nd trimester. Almost 3/4 of all Americans think it should be illegal.
Except the gun show loophole is a loophole big enough to drive a train through.
No need to wait, no need for a background check if you are of a mind to avoid that.
Maybe NARAL should start sponsoring abortion shows.
Yep…unregulated back alley abortions is the solution! :rolleyes:
Point is your claimed waiting period and background check for buying a gun can be legally sidestepped.
It was a joke. But if NARAL did this (not going to happen, but let’s say it would for kicks), I would expect they would only have licensed doctors perform the procedure.
Doesn’t really matter, since we’re talking about positions people take on the subject. If you’re for waiting periods/background checks for guns, then maybe you shouldn’t look down on people who are for similar waiting periods for abortions. Both are rights protected by the constitution, but no right is without restrictions. The SCOTUS is the arbiter of whether said restriction is “unreasonable” or, to use their language, an “undue burden”, and they have spoken on the matter of waiting periods for abortion in Casey. I don’t know what they’ve said about the gun issue.
Casey upheld a 24 hour waiting period. I showed earlier Utah now has a 72-hour waiting period.
Kinda curious where it is felt the waiting period becomes burdensome.
I suspect a 9 month waiting period might be struck down. (That was a joke, too.)
I don’t really know what SCOTUS will say. My gut tells me anything more than a week would be too much (the clock is ticking, after all). Three days? That might squeak through, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Literal on the term pro-life, by comparison to Damuri’s reference to anti-choice being only anti to the choice of abortion, and calling themselves pro-life. Pro choice is well earned, for example the many reproductive choices offered at our health center; pro-life, (or your “pro-human life”) is a misleading propaganda term for a group that is not concerned with anyone’s life, but their manufactured at risk group.
I used to work as an escort for a women’s clinic. The thing is, if a woman was undecided about whether or not she wanted to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy, she would be informed of all the options, even if she had an appointment for an abortion at that time. She wasn’t pushed into one option or another. If she wanted to keep the pregnancy, she was given a list of resources. However, if she went to an anti-choice organization, she would only be given resources if she agreed to keep the pregnancy. She wasn’t informed of all the options.
“Viability” is a moral distinction, it’s a technological one. That’s just creeping anti-abortionism, since as medical technology advances eventually “viability” will be pushed back to conception or even before; as soon as the sperm and eggs are able to reach each other,that will be “viability”.
Of course you can. The overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, and Christianity is a deeply misogynistic religion. And on top of that, America is a very politically narrow and right wing country. It’s easy to find huge support for cruel or stupid things here, especially if they have a religious base; 65% of Americans support teaching creationism in schools, for example.
Probably when it starts inconveniencing rich women. But since they can easily just get it done out of the country, that would be “never”. It’s poor women who are severely hampered or prevented from getting a legal abortion because of waiting periods; there’s a significant tinge of class warfare in such laws.
I assume you meant “isn’t” as the 2nd word. I agree. And as viability is pushed back, so should our policy on abortion. I don’t want to live in a society that kills a human being that could be saved. The woman does’t have to raise the baby, but no reason to kill a viable human being.
Eh. Move somewhere else if it bothers you that much. This thread is about the “moderate” view of abortion. I, myself, am not a moderate on that subject but, unlike you, I’m able to put my own perspective aside and evaluate what Americans actually think. If 70% of Americans believe “x”, then “x” is the moderate view in the US. You and I don’t have to agree with it for it to be the moderate view.
The viability criterion means you can take the baby out and see if current medical technology can save it. There’s no reason for a bright line. It’s kida an inherent line. You have the right to evict the fetus because its your body, but not the right to kill it if it would survive.
Really? That’s news to me. And your site suggests otherwise:
I’d really, REALLY like to see a cite for that.
Well, perhaps more simply a rich woman is in a better position to take vacation days from her employer or is she is a professional and can set her own schedule or she’s independently wealthy or has a husband whose income can support her, while a poor woman working a McJob cannot, so a three-day waiting period (i.e. taking time off work twice in one week for two appointments) is a minor nuisance for the former and a getting-fired problem for the latter.
Either way, waiting periods are condescending and dickish.
No, you want to live in a society that medically humiliates women and produces unwanted children as a side effect. And I doubt you’ll want to pay for the no-doubt expensive process, much less raising the resulting child to adulthood. Plus, if we really took your logic seriously then once human cloning in perfected, every time someone scratched themselves, we should save the resulting detritus and grow all the discarded cells into a few trillion more people. After all, every cell in that bit of tissue will be just as viable as that ovum you are declaring a “human being”.
Standard American love-it-or-leave it nonsense. Americans love to talk about how free and diverse they are, but in reality most can’t stand anything but rabid conformity.
That’s ridiculous. By that logic if most Americans supported slavery or exterminating everyone outside of the US border, those would be “moderate” views. You are just trying to define away extremism, cruelty and tyranny.
And calling them anti-choice is just YOUR propaganda.
I never said that pro-choice was not an accurate descriptor of the pro-choice side, I think it is an accurate descriptor. I Explicitly said that pro-life was not an accurate descriptor of the anti-abortion side. I think calling them anti-choice is hysterics and makes me take you less seriously.
So how can I sidestep waiting periods and background checks in NYC?
You seem to think that My criticism of the term anti-choice is an attack on the term pro-choice. Why would you make that sort of kneejerk assumption?
You seem to be injecting the most right wing viewpoints into anyone that disagrees with yo.
Some anti-abortion folks might feel they have more in common with abolitionists than you.
No; it’s an accurate way of describing their position.
But they are factually wrong. They are closest to the slavers, not the abolitionists; they wish to reduce half the human race to the status of domestic animals, of property. Their property.