Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I agree, and a million abortions a year are not done for the reasons I posted.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
“Let the states decide.”
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Ok, if it is so straightforward then it is a simple question. What kind of medical procedure would you travel out of state for?
Not answering is an answer. The fact that you can't answer a simple question tells us that you haven't thought about the implications of your position.
Thank you.
If reducing the number of abortions is your goal, then there are lots of options available besides stripping pregnant people of bodily autonomy:
- minimize unwanted pregnancies by ensuring good, mandatory sex ed in schools and contraception readily available to anyone who needs it.
- make it as easily possible for people to freely choose to bring a pregnancy to term by addressing the reasons for abortion.
And BTW: here are those reasons:
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...
If you don't support measures like:
- geting proper sex ed into schools,
- requiring employers to grant reasonable (i.e. a year or more) paid, job-protected leaves for pregnancy and to care for their new baby, and
- making parenthood affordable and practically possible for anyone with a full-time job (e.g. public health insurance and affordable child care)
... then I'm not going to believe that your anti-choice stance is really about "saving innocent babies."
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
But I do support sex ed in schools, and sure, I can support the other things as long as they are not provided by the government.If reducing the number of abortions is your goal, then there are lots of options available besides stripping pregnant people of bodily autonomy:
- minimize unwanted pregnancies by ensuring good, mandatory sex ed in schools and contraception readily available to anyone who needs it.
- make it as easily possible for people to freely choose to bring a pregnancy to term by addressing the reasons for abortion.
And BTW: here are those reasons:
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...www.guttmacher.org
If you don't support measures like:
- geting proper sex ed into schools,
- requiring employers to grant reasonable (i.e. a year or more) paid, job-protected leaves for pregnancy and to care for their new baby, and
- making parenthood affordable and practically possible for anyone with a full-time job (e.g. public health insurance and affordable child care)
... then I'm not going to believe that your anti-choice stance is really about "saving innocent babies."
So you support free contraceptives, as long as It is not provided by the government.
Do you provide free contraception to people in your community? Would you?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Nope. sorry, it doesn't work that way.
So then in practical terms, you don't support those other things.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Men are more concerned with the larger issues that impact people of all ages and walks of life. They do not fixate on just their own self serving special interest group; women and abortion. Lefty women are the most selfish. Men are more concerned with inflation, crime, illegal immigration that impact everyone. Men, as husband and fathers have had to worry about the bigger picture, for eons, and never had as much free time or ride for self indulgence loopholes.
Say abortion was legal, but treated like the right to own guns. In this scenario women can have an abortion, but do not get a free ride. Rather they have to pay for their own, just like with gun ownership. Say there is also inflation on abortion services, like there is now on energy, food and housing, and the price of an abortion increases by 25%. Would women worry about inflation? Or would they expect a government free ride to take up that slack? Like guns, a women could have the right to have an abortion, but have to pay. This would still a right. Free ride abortion is not a right, anymore than it is for gun ownership.
I would prefer we treat abortion like cosmetic surgery. A woman may not need a nose job, for health reasons. However, if she believes it can make her feel better about herself, and she is willing to save, since it may not not be covered by insurance or government handouts, let her, pursue her happiness. Having abortion, go back to the states, with not all states offering this service, is actually leading to this more free market solution; medical tourism. This will not be a free ride, but still can be worth the expense, like the nose job, if it is that important. While the extra effort, will decrease future abortions, while leaving the option open.
Gun owners have the right to own guns, but they not only have to buy their own guns and ammo, but depending on the state, they also have jump through more or less hoops. Too many Liberal women think they deserve a free ride and no hoops. How about we do that with guns? Would that free ride approach with no hoops, make the gun problem worse or better? The same is true of abortion.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You are still not making any sense.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It seems all the abortion controversy revolves around when a fetus stops being a fetus and then is regarded as human.
For me personally, it's when a fetus can feel pain.
That's reasonable?
To the extent legally possible, I'd never hire anyone
who might get a newborn (eg, by birth or adoption).
Paying them for a year or more for no work is quite
a burden. And then what would happen when they
return....just fire their replacement?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
If you really want to pay people for giving birth, then
spread the burden to all taxpayers.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
That is because you can't think of one, but you expect women, which I assume you aren't, to do exactly that and yes it doesn't make sense.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
From the code of federal regulations.
§ 46.202 Definitions.
The definitions in § 46.102 shall be applicable to this subpart as well. In addition, as used in this subpart:
(a) Dead fetus means a fetus that exhibits neither heartbeat, spontaneous respiratory activity, spontaneous movement of voluntary muscles, nor pulsation of the umbilical cord.
(b) Delivery means complete separation of the fetus from the woman by expulsion or extraction or any other means.
(c) Fetus means the product of conception from implantation until delivery.
(d) Neonate means a newborn.
(e) Nonviable neonate means a neonate after delivery that, although living, is not viable.
Now how you wish to deal with other issues is another question, but it stops being a fetus when it is born.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So a baby the very day before it is born. Is nothing but a fetus? Am I right?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
See what I mean?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sure, why not?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I did not say that, I specifically said that I DO support those other things in fact. Unless they are paid for by the government. In other words, tax payers.
Take out the "nothing but", & you got it right.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
The question has a clear "yes" or "no" answer, but you do not want to say either. That is itself a kind of answer, and we can all draw our own conclusions from a non-answer.
You could tell us why you think it has no answer, but I suspect you can't really explain what is wrong with the question. It is one that a state government answers very clearly when it passes a law. And you support their answer when you favor the law. That is the whole point of asking the question. To get some sense of why you support laws that answer the question for you. This has nothing to do with how we define personhood. It has to do with whether a government should have the right to take away a woman's control over her own body and her own pregnancy.