• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

24 hour waiting period for abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion


  • Total voters
    50

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As seen in AZ:

Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday signed into law tight new restrictions on access to abortion in Arizona, imposing a 24-hour waiting period on women seeking the procedure and requiring that minors first receive written, notarized consent from a parent or guardian.
Governor signs bills on guns, abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion?
If so, how?
If not, why not?
 
IF they can impose waiting periods on things that are actually rights then why not impose waiting periods on things that are not actually rights?
 
Nothing wrong with it as long as the procedure is not being denied.
 
What is the justification for the 24 hour waiting period? Its not a huge burden, but it has no purpose. Medical procedures should not be pointlessly delayed.
 
What is the justification for the 24 hour waiting period? Its not a huge burden, but it has no purpose. Medical procedures should not be pointlessly delayed.

I like how you asked a question and then answered it yourself.

Shows that your not genuine and we shouldn't take you seriously in this discussion :2razz:
 
There's nothing wrong with a 24 hour waiting period. As long as the "waiting period" isn't long enough to interfere with any legal deadlines, and as long as there are exemptions for emergency surgeries, I'm not the least bit concerned with a mandatory waiting period for abortion.
 
There is no right to commit murder.

The waiting period should be nine months.
 
What is the justification for the 24 hour waiting period? Its not a huge burden, but it has no purpose. Medical procedures should not be pointlessly delayed.

Pointless medical procedures to commit murder should be indefinitely delayed.
 
I like how you asked a question and then answered it yourself.

Shows that your not genuine and we shouldn't take you seriously in this discussion

It was an invitation for someone to try and justify it. Since you have provided none, I guess you agree that there is no justification. :2razz:

Scarecrow is providing what is likely the real purpose for the law. The governor doesn't want abortion to be legal, so she will annoy people who are trying to get them.
 
The 24 hour waiting period makes it more difficult for poor women to have an abortion. For example, if laws are passed that outlaw abortion of any kind in South Dakota, a women would have to travel to a neighboring state where it is legal. If that state has a 24 hour waiting period it is going to increase the costs of the woman to travel. This may only be a minor inconvenience for women who can afford it, but could be extremely difficult for the poor.
 
It doesn't interfere with the right to have an abortion, but it affects the right to have one at the time of one's choosing. And what's the point anyway? Do they really think the woman hasn't thought about it? Like she just woke up one day and wandered into the Planned Parenthood after grabbing a taco? "WTF? Maybe I'll grab an abortion, too".
 
The 24 hour waiting period makes it more difficult for poor women to have an abortion. For example, if laws are passed that outlaw abortion of any kind in South Dakota...
How does this follow from a law in question from the state of AZ?
And... so what?
Does "making it more difficult" create an infringement?
 
How does this follow from a law in question from the state of AZ?
And... so what?


I was giving an example. The same argument could apply to any number of states.

"So what?" - I guess it depends. The only thing the 24 hour period does is make it more difficult for poor people to have an abortion, it really has no effect on anyone else.

Does it make it an infringement? Probably not...but the bigger question is, Does it serve any real legitimate interest?
 
Last edited:
I was giving an example. The same argument could apply to any number of states.

"So what?" - I guess it depends. The only thing the 24 hour period does is make it more difficult for poor people to have an abortion, it really has no effect on anyone else.
Under the terms of your argument, does "making it more difficult" create an infringement?
 
It was an invitation for someone to try and justify it. Since you have provided none, I guess you agree that there is no justification. :2razz:

Scarecrow is providing what is likely the real purpose for the law. The governor doesn't want abortion to be legal, so she will annoy people who are trying to get them.

Well, that's not what I said, but let's look at it.

You're saying that it's wrong for the government to interfere in a woman's decision to murder her child, and that an emotionally distraught woman is fair game for anyone seeking to prey on her in that state by pressuring her to have an irreversible fatal medical procedure done on her child immediately before she has the opportunity to consider the ramifications, her true feelings on the matter, or to consult with friends and family.

But, in many states, people are allowed to return purchases or withdraw from contracts up to three days after signing them..California exempts car sales from this, if I recall. So, what you're saying is that it's okay to protect people from salesmen, but abortionists and high pressure car salesmen are better than most so there's no need to protect women from them.
 
Here's the way I look at waiting periods. I agree with Gobie that a right delayed is a right denied. To adjust for the discussion I will compare gun waiting periods to abortion waiting periods. There is an asserted right to own guns in the constitution whereas Roe v. Wade implied a right to abortions, I don't personally care if abortion is legal or not, it should be left to the states or be allowed federally via an actual amendment to the constitution, this being said, there is no right to abortion in the correct sense.
Next, let's look at the reasons for waiting periods, they are there to provide a cooling off period in the case that someone would otherwise commit a bad act in the heat of passion.
here is where it gets interesting:
1) A heat of passion crime usually takes place within 5 minutes and is done with whatever happens to be handy at the time, this means any weapon necessary, someone driving to the gun shop and purchasing the weapon will probably attain the sanity moment before the ink is put to the first of the paperwork, by the time the ATF check is done, any act commited after that was going to happen, someone may even come to a last minute moment of clarity and realize that something as horrendous as murder is not worth the guilt, sin(if religious), or criminal consequences and drop the issue. So the waiting period is not as necessary after the fact as it is on the surface.
2) Abortion, well, you can't undo an abortion and from what I understand there is much guilt and depression felt by many who have one, so a cooling off period could be applied for the same purposes as above, and, I will guess that it takes less time to drive to an abortion clinic and have the procedure done than filling out firearms paperwork and having the information called in for the database check. If someone is dead set on killing another or having an abortion, the same logic would apply that it is going to happen.

So where does ol' LMR stand on this. I really don't know and it isn't my business, but just wanted to lend some observations to this discussion because it's actually quite interesting.
 
Under the terms of your argument, does "making it more difficult" create an infringement?

Well, if anyone had the right to murder children, then yes, requiring them to wait to exercise that right would be an infringement, just like waiting periods are an infringement on gun ownership.

Since no one has the right to kill babies, no, it's not an infringement.
 
You're saying that it's wrong for the government to interfere in a woman's decision to murder her child, and that an emotionally distraught woman is fair game for anyone seeking to prey on her in that state by pressuring her to have an irreversible fatal medical procedure done on her child immediately before she has the opportunity to consider the ramifications, her true feelings on the matter, or to consult with friends and family.

In essence, yes.

But, in many states, people are allowed to return purchases or withdraw from contracts up to three days after signing them..California exempts car sales from this, if I recall. So, what you're saying is that it's okay to protect people from salesmen, but abortionists and high pressure car salesmen are better than most so there's no need to protect women from them

This bill is comparable to forcing everyone to wait 24 hours before they can purchase a car. I wouldn't tolerate anyone trying to "protect" me in such a fashion. You are supporting classic nanny-state behavior.
 
The 24 hour waiting period makes it more difficult for poor women to have an abortion. For example, if laws are passed that outlaw abortion of any kind in South Dakota, a women would have to travel to a neighboring state where it is legal. If that state has a 24 hour waiting period it is going to increase the costs of the woman to travel. This may only be a minor inconvenience for women who can afford it, but could be extremely difficult for the poor.

If they're so poor how the hell did they come up with the $300-500 for the abortion itself?
 
Back
Top Bottom