No, Roe v. Wade does not rule that abortion should automatically be legal “all of the time”. Which is why every state has abortion laws that criminalize abortion in certain circumstances without running afoul of Roe.
Having abortion be legal “all of the time”, meaning “without any restrictions whatsoever”, is not what Roe upholds. So the majority who support having some legal restrictions are not in fact rejecting Roe, implicitly or otherwise.
Actually, I think the worst hypocrites are those who think abortion should be completely illegal for everyone (except for themselves or for their own wife, daughter, mistress). There are plenty about who think “the only moral abortion is MY abortion”
Well, yes, that would be worse. And the funny thing is that those types aren’t hypothetical either, as I’m sure you know. There’s one in Congress.
You bet it worked. Really, the primary thing that this group wants is for POOR women to have no access to abortion, while BETTER OFF women have the option. Because, don’tcha know, rich girls are not slutty things that get themselves knocked up. They are little innocents who “made a mistake”. These differences are important.
This is supposed to be some great dilemma? OK, for the sake of argument, call it 5 years for anyone performing an abortion. What now?
how many years for the woman?
I don’t think it’s a great dilemma, but the amount of people who actually want to imprison women for getting abortions is far, far lower (I believe) then the amount of people who want to outlaw abortion. So the pro-life side doesn’t talk about it much, because that would be very unpopular.
That’s one of my Wikipedia userboxes: “This user is pro-life but supports a woman’s right to choose.” Don’t like abortions? Then help prevent unwanted pregnancies and make contraception widely, easily available. Seems to me that would be a no-brainer. Hillary Clinton got that exactly right, years ago, but I wonder if anybody even listened.
Anyway, I am signed up, with no reservations, for the fight to preserve women’s choice and women’s lives.
And because it makes them ENORMOUS hypocrites. If abortion is murder, the pregnant woman is unequivocally as guilty of murder as a doctor. Yet they refuse to live up to their own beliefs.
You’re saying that’s you? You call yourself prolife but you’re also pro-choice? That’s a confusing use of terminology.
I don’t think it’s confusing at all. Not many of us are “anti-life”, despite how some want to paint us. The vast, vast majority of those who are in favor of a woman’s right to choose are also of the opinion that abortions should be greatly reduced. What we think, though is the way to reduce them is not to outlaw them, or forbid poor women from getting abortions, but rather to decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control.
It’s interesting that many on the “anti-choice” side are also the same folks who are against birth control, family planning and sex education.
Not really. Why should people opposed to abortion get to define the term pro-life?
Because they did it first.
You can call yourself whatever you want. But if you go around saying you are pro-life, most people are going to think that means you are anti-abortion.
Sure. But it’s still confusing.
If your point is just to say “pro-life” is a bad label because it implies that pro-choice = “anti-life” then just say that.
Why?
Because ideally those people won’t be getting pregnant in the first place. In the earliest stages, an abortion is a minor outpatient medical procedure with minimal risk, but it’s not risk-free. Later in the pregnancy, the scope of the procedure and the risk of injury to the mother increases. Besides that, abortions are expensive and unpleasant.
Okay, but why is that really relevant? You want to make risky, expensive, unpleasant medical procedures less common. Who doesn’t? I just don’t understand why you’d bring it up. Are you just talking about how we should have more birth control?
I can’t speak for EP, but yes - though their are enough prospective adoptive parents to swallow up pretty much every baby born ever. Probably less teenage sex would be good, too; there’s nothing wrong with abstinence education. Abstinence-only education is fucking lunacy, though.
Amen! (That’s me, btw). I self-identify as pro-life, and although I would be opposed to making most abortions illegal, I strongly support making all the alternatives to abortion much more attractive instead.
Why do you self-identify as pro-life when you support keeping abortion legal? I just want to understand your thinking, not challenging it (though I might ;)).
Because I’m anti-abortion. From a religious perspective, I find every abortion tragic and heartbreaking. But I also respect the fact that I do not have the right, legally or morally, to impose my beliefs about abortion onto other people. Plus, the reality is, outlawing abortion creates more tragedy in the lives of women and unwanted babies.
So if I hate abortion, but don’t want to victimize women or babies, the solution is to give women options that are better: sex education (including but not limited to abstinence); easily obtainable birth control without stigma; streamlined and affordable domestic adoption laws; subsidized job training and child care for single mothers; affordable health care (pre- and post-natal), etc.